Cast in Gray is an extraordinarily poetic work. Every aspect of it, from the narrative conception to the sense of movement to the editing and (not least) the cinematography, strikes a stunning balance between dazzling clarity and a vague dreamy quality. I found myself clinging passionately to its every moment. How rare that a film nowadays can carry off such daring lyricism, holding us in the cup of its hand with an absolute minimum of dialog, incident, cutting, scenic variety, or any of the other strategies utilized to make films move along. There is a tough-minded discipline to this film that gives it enormous credibility. But it is also a heartbreakingly kind and gentle film. It is truly not to be missed.


Saw this at the Midwest Independent Film Festival. Really enjoyed the ambiguity of the symbolism. Very clever - the symbols work for Christian viewers as well as devotees of modern psychology, myth structure, what-have-you. The question lingers, of course, at the end: was it a dream? Was there even ever a man and a dog? Was this truly a wayfarer or was this the inner struggle made flesh? The case for the wandering man being Christ is strong if you tend toward those lines of thinking (obviously that's my first leaning): he died for the main character's sins. Then in that case what is the dog, but the burden of caretaking, the concept of blind selflessness and charity towards others ("he doesn't have a name"), that Christianity extols? I cannot speak for other worldviews' interpretation of the movie but I am sure there are similar explanations for Freudian, Jungian, etc., paradigms.

Conversations with the filmmakers revealed that there intentionally was no one true explanation of the film. A story of redemption and sacrifice, laden with traditional symbolism, that lets the viewer take from it what he wants. Strongly recommended.


What is the difference between a movie that is "okay" and a movie that stays with you long after you have seen it?

It boils down to the ability of the film-maker to make the elements he has at his disposal work together to tell a story. Does he turn the camera on and point it at the actors, or does he compose his shot to give the audience information about the characters and the story? Does the mood created by the words on the page of the script work with the visual elements to create a world within the film that we believe in? Have the actors been brought into the process in such a way that their performances make us interested in that world?

In the case of "Cast in Gray," the answer to all of the questions above is a definitive "yes." We are taken to a world that, though not specifically unrealistic, somehow exists in that part of the mind where the rules may have been suspended. That, or the character called "The Man" is in such a strange state of mind that it is he who has gone to that part of the mind. In the role of "The Man with the Dog," (a different person than "The Man") Stephen Angus creates an utterly mysterious character with an effortlessness that is in such contrast to the tempest he creates in his scene partner, (the besieged Tim Burke,) that it is impossible to look away from his face. The considerable power of this performance lies in the absolute calm with which it is executed. Is he a puppeteer, a madman, a messenger or something else altogether?

Don't blink, viewer, if you want to make your own case for what is going on.

Intelligent film-making in search of an intelligent audience. Thanks, "Cast in Gray."


I saw this film last night at the Midwest Indy Film Fest in Chicago. I commend the filmmakers on a beautiful and challenging story and wonderful execution. I strongly disagreed with the length and labored approach in the final edit. I agree with the director that languor and easy films are needed in our fast pace world, yet, here the length is doing your film a disservice. The film lover next to me fell asleep! I struggled to keep interested.

As filmmakers you need to take a stand with your beliefs, but you need to realize the risks. Does this particular film need to be 39 minutes, 37, 22? Is that worth endearing the film to this part of the audience, while, this part of the audience falls asleep? I bring this up because I feel the film will lose nothing, and gain so much more, if it was tighter. The idea that you need a labored approach for this heavy theme is not a valid argument. Roman Polanski's "Two Men and a Wardrobe" is soaked with rich themes and is 15 minutes. Marcell Ivanyi's "Wind" is spell binding in the themes it introduces at 6 minutes.

Ultimately, the short film is a unique artform, complex and ever changing. There is a certain social contract that exists between filmmaker and audience on what that artform is. What is the general public perception on the range of length of the short film artform? Do you feel the labored edit of your story is justified by the power of the third act and the direction of the characters arc? Why do some people enjoy the pace of "Lost in Translation" but fall asleep here? You can break those conditions whenever you like, and I hope you do, just recognize the risk.

To end on a good note, I like your effort now; I'll love your film after a tighter edit.


"The Crusades" is a 4x45 minute British TV miniseries and documentary of one of history's greatest faux pas made in the name of Christianity, the Crusades of the 11th and 12 centuries AD. The always jovial Terry Jones (Monty Python) hosts this documentary as he travels from England to Istanbul to Jerusalem and beyond explaining the who, what, where, why, and when of the more notable of the many European forays into the Holy Land. An excellent production laced with humor and supported by plenty of film clips, maps, reenactments, expert commentary, etc., "The Crusades" makes an enjoyable primer for the common man. A worthy effort as a stand alone documentary this series also offers a historical foundation for a better understanding of present day tribulations in the middle East. (B+)


... to quote the great Jack Nicholson. while it is true that in any conflict there are atrocities on both sides, not one of the negative commentators can refute any of the claims made in this series, they can only point out that it is one sided. well yes, that is the point, it is about the Christian crusades, if it was about the side of the muslims it would have been called "jihad" or something. it is very suitable that a python would handle this subject since much of it verges on farcical, if it weren't so utterly horrible. just the fact that when they finally get to to Jerusalem not only is it not occupied by the people that were supposedly oppressing it (the turks were already kicked out) that in fact everybody was getting along quite well. that's a python moment if there ever was one! i can hear the dialogue now

Christian: "We have to come to rescue you from the infidel blasphemers!"

jerusalem resident: "No thank you, we're doing just dandy actually, perhaps you would like to save the next city?"

Christian: "But we have travelled for years through untold hardship and struggle to kick out the infidels! God has willed it!"

jerusalem resident: "Look, it's not my fault we're not being oppressed, what do you want me to do, beat myself over the head?"

and so on .... and of course they end up looting and pillaging the "holy city". and you know, i don't think the Arab world has forgotten this period as much as we have, and we are still paying for those dark and bloody times. i'm glad this series was made, we must face the truths of history, no matter how ugly they are or how much they shatter our fragile myths we have created to shield ourselves from the true horrors of our past.


At times this documentary was disturbing, talking about pogroms and mass slaughter; then, in the next scene, the topic will switch to Monty Python. And Terry Jones (a former Python) actually makes it work! Watch it (provided you have 4 hours on your hands). You'll learn lots and won't get bored--I promise.


Terry Jones is not only a talented comedian, he is also an accomplished historian. I found this series to be a well crafted and accurate view of a particularly dark time in history when ambition and zealotry brought terrible violence to western Asia. Jones blends humor and insight with storytelling to give a vivid picture of the motivations and fears of the different players. Unfortunately, the pacing in the 3rd and 4th episodes seemed a bit hurried, but this is a minor criticism of an otherwise fine documentary.

One of my favorite parts was the account of the Byzantine emperor's handling of successive waves of peasants and soldiers that arrived at his gate during the first crusade. He was a clever statesman that was struggling to keep his imperiled world safe from threats from every direction.

If you enjoyed this work, I also recommend Terry Jones' Medieval Lives.


Terry Jones as the host was a brilliant choice. The series is an excellent mix of history and humor. However it is quite biased against the Crusaders. It appears that the producers tried to make it seem that the Crusades were unprovoked hostility toward the Muslims who were living in peace with their Christian and Jewish neighbors. This is inaccurate. The Crusades were a provoked response by Europeans against increasing encroachment of Jihadists into European territory. Let's not forget that Spain was conquered by the Muslims in the 8th century (300 years BEFORE the Crusades). After that they conducted several invasions into France and Italy. Read about Charles Martel and Tours. The Muslims had been attacking Constantinople for centuries and were also attacking Christian Pilgrims on their way to the Holy Land. As far as Muslims living in peace with their non-Muslim neighbors...true, to a point. Before invading a territory, Muslim commanders were required to give their enemy three choices: 1. Accept Islam and everything that is required of a Muslim (you know, fun stuff like, no pork, no alcohol, paying zakat, praying five times a day, oh yeah...and circumcision). 2. They could pay the non-Muslim tax and live as Dhimmi. Which means protected or a liability or guilty. These were Jews and Christians sometimes others such as Buddhists, Sikhs, Hindus, and Zoroastrians whose right to practice their religion is tolerated under Islamic law, but with lower legal status. 3. Die. Not much of a choice. For a person just becoming interested in the Crusades period of history, this miniseries is just right. However, research on your own is important. Do not take everything in this program at face value. You will be much the wiser for it.


Excellent, beautiful and amusing account of the Crusades. For those who think that the account is a little one sided and harsh on Catholics should consider this. Pope John Paul II himself apologized for the mistakes committed in the name of the Church during the Crusades to Muslim leaders in March of 2000.

As a Catholic, i never felt for one moment that Catholisism was being portrayed as "..utterly irrational, bloodthirsty, and a forerunner to Nazism" in the series. To call that suggestion a ridiculous hyperbole would be an understatement. I hope some people here realize that the Church never was or ever will be infallible.


This is the kind of cat and mouse thriller that we will never make again. It is a movie that went through a process. Someone had an idea, wrote the story, set the atmosphere, and produced a white knuckled mystery. Boy, do I miss film noir.

Barbara Stanwyck plays an intelligent professional woman who sees a woman murdered in the apartment across from her. She calls the police who come to the conclusion she was dreaming. Gary Merrill plays the weary, but sympathetic, detective who investigates. They question the suspect - George Sanders - but he eventually convinces them that she is unbalanced. She becomes more and more desperate for someone to believe her all the while she is being set up. She and Gary Merrill begin to fall in love. He wants to believe her, but George has spun an insidious web. Eventually she finds herself under suspicion and is sent to the cuckoo's nest for observation. There is bizarre confrontation between Barbara and George where he actually admits the murder and proclaims himself the savior of the 4th Reich! You'll have to take it from there.

Barbara Stanwyck was a little past her prime, but she still put out the passion and energy that made her famous. George Sanders really looked tired, but displayed that old world charm that makes little old ladies melt. Gary Merrill is such a likable guy, you tend to forget that he can't act.

There was not one car chase, not one explosion, and no one fired a pistol, never mind a Mach 10. Boy I miss these movies.


There should be a sub-genre in thrilling writing about the stories where somebody stumbles, accidentally, into witnessing a major crime but the perpetrator keeps countering each move with one of his or her own. The reviews on this thread keep referring to Hitchcock's REAR WINDOW, which certainly is the best known version of this plot, except for one element that is not in that film until very late. A better film to compare WITNESS TO MURDER to is actually THE WINDOW with Bobby Driscoll, Arthur Kennedy, and Paul Stewart.

Difference between WITNESS and REAR WINDOW, of course, is that in the latter film Raymond Burr is unaware of why he is the center of so much attention by the police until he sees Grace Kelly's gesture regarding his wife's ring and the only person who can see it is Jimmy Stewart across the courtyard of the apartment buildings. Then he realizes who has been tipping the cops off about him. But that is about ten minutes before the end of the film.

The situation in WITNESS TO MURDER is almost identical to THE WINDOW. Barbara Stanwyck happens to see a woman being strangled in an apartment near her's by George Sanders. But Sanders (like Paul Stewart in THE WINDOW, notices her and prepares accordingly. He (like Stewart) has nothing to hide when the police (Gary Merrill and Jesse White) show up. He is soon analyzing Stanwyck for them as a neurotic spinster who hallucinates. And he is quite convincing.

The difference between Sanders and Paul Stewart in their comparative film parts is that Stewart killed his victim in an argument over business (Sanders was in a sexual rage). Moreover, whatever one thinks of Stewart's glib and careful killer, he is not getting deeper and deeper into crime out of any political or intellectual views. Put another way: if Bobby Driscoll had not witnessed what happened, but was sound asleep (and Stewart was sure of it), Stewart would have hidden the dead body somewhere, and he and Ruth Roman would have packed up and moved to another city. Roman's loyalty to him would have reassured that there wouldn't have been any problems on that end.

But with Sanders he approaches the situation from a "spiritual" side that Stewart would have found incomprehensible. We learn (and it is a point that Merrill finds odd and troubling) that this suave, courteous, and intellectual man is a defender of Nietzche's "superman" theories (as twisted by the Nazis) and apologist for the policies of the Nazis in several books. His treatment of his initial victim, and his subtle and continuous persecution of Stanwyck are of a piece (he does not believe such inferior types should threaten him). Towards the end he even intends to make her death appear to be a suicide. Stewart felt Driscoll was a viable threat to his freedom and security, but he never has a speech suggesting the boy was a biological inferior.

WITNESS TO MURDER is a good thriller, but it is not one of the all time great ones. Still it is a worthy picture, the only one where Stanwyck and Sanders appeared in together. So I give it a "7" on the scale, recommending it as an interesting version of the hunted turned hunter genre of thriller.


"Witness to Murder" is a small but interesting film starring Barbara Stanwyck, George Sanders, and Gary Merrill. By 1954, Stanwyck was 47 and no longer considered leading lady material. However, because she was such a great star and actress, she could still get good roles in big films, "Titanic" and "Executive Suite" being two that leap to mind. She could also, like Loretta Young, get stuck in B movies like this one and "Jeopardy." "Witness to Murder" isn't so much a B movie as it is closer to what one was seeing on television by 1954. And it's not a B cast.

Stanwyck plays a career woman, Cheryl, of a certain age who sees a woman murdered in the apartment across from hers. The apartment belongs to an author, Albert Richter, who emigrated to America after the war. Cheryl reports the murder but no one believes her. Richter is too smooth and always one step ahead of her with the police. Cheryl is considered an hysterical single woman who has delusions because she isn't married and probably going through menopause, though this isn't out and out stated. Completely outrageous and no doubt what actually went on at the time. These assumptions were just taken for granted in the '50s. There was something really wrong with a woman who never married. Read LOSER. A woman's goal in life was marriage; the career was just a stopgap until the ring was on the finger. What must it have been like for an intelligent woman to have that mantle put on her. In this film, the police detective (Gary Merrill) is interested enough in her to at least follow the case.

All of the acting is very good, with Stanwyck really shining as someone determined to get the truth out, even if she has to do a little detective work herself. Sanders is very effective as the villainous Richter, and he's pretty scary at the end of the film. The last 15 minutes or so are exciting and will have you on the edge of your seat.

This is actually a fairly derivative film bolstered by its stars. And you can't beat the opportunity to see the attitudes toward women played out in a realistic manner. Alas, there are still touches of it today.


I just saw this today, also thanks to TCM. It was well-paced and very believable and kept my interest throughout. Stanwyck, Merrill and Sanders were all superb, as were the minor roles well-played. Barbara is one of my very favorite actresses, always bringing professionalism and passion to the roles she played. You just imagined her with a backbone of steel, a perfect feminist heroine, most especially in her later roles. There is not a wasted moment in this film, and I particularly liked the first scene with the windy backdrop, adding an air of foreboding to what was unfolding. NO ONE plays a villain better than George Sanders, and he gives his usual splendid portrayal in this film.


The first time you watch Little Britain, you will be laughing so hard and will keep on laughing for the next half hour. What Little Britain failed to do though was to actually create new jokes, instead favouring the use of the jokes from the first episode all the way through to the 2nd series, and 3rd if there is one.

Without doubt it is a very funny stereotypical drama on British people, and was very funny, but what they failed to do and cheaply did was reuse the same jokes over and over again, and by the 4th episode, it gets so incredibly dull I could have more fun watching paint dry for that half hour.

In conclusion, great comedy at first, but due to same jokes being used over and over again, becomes in overwhelmingly bored.


I watched these episodes on NetFlix and there are moments that are funny, but the comedy gets a little old after a while because of the limited number of characters. Not that this problem is all that unusual for a lot of sketch comedy.

It reminds me a bit of MadTV or SNL with the repeating characters; with some of the vulgarity of South Park; and some absurdity as in Monty Python. It has much higher production values than the usual sketch comedy (which usually has an obvious look of being filmed on a set with cheap costumes and a "studio audience"). They make it look much more like a normal TV show.

Some touches are outstanding--including some very funny characters, good voice-over and interesting ending vignettes.

While it's undeniably entertaining, it has all the same problems that most sketch comedy has: some characters start becoming more annoying than funny after a while, especially if they were a little annoying to begin with. Give it time for shock-value to wear off or the line to be said one-too-many-times, or the main joke of a sketch becomes routine, and you'll start feeling a little weary of it. This is especially true if you watch episodes without giving some time in between.

Examples: Dame Sally Markham was funny at first, but finding more ways for her to pad out her romance novels starts to get a little boring. Lou and Andy are also funny at first, but after a while I get tired of the 3 minute set-up for him to predictably change his mind about what he wants.

Other characters are a little more funny such as Marjorie Dawes of FatFighters (the ultimate hypocrite who lectures everyone else and tries to act superior). It's a bit Church Lady-ish from SNL. Yet at least they put her in some different situations and give her more material. I find Vicky funny despite the repetitiveness.

I'm sure the characters people get annoyed with depend on the personality and how often you see them.

It's probably worth checking out the series if you haven't seen it, but don't watch too many in a row or you'll blow through the series and feel a little sick and annoyed in the process.


I adore well written comedy from the US and UK but this is not it. While sometimes there are funny moments the majority of it is predictable and a bit pointless. I don't know if its just me but Im sure its intentionally dumbed down. I don't know the reason why because undoubtedly the two writers can write a much better script ( well I hope they can) While the show attacks all groups and genders it is in fact riddled with political correctness in every sketch. Its to much to go in to here, but its the usual promotion of certain leftist agendas and tries at every opportunity to ridicule any right wing thinking. To cover the tracks of an agenda no group is left out of the scenery whether its gays, fat people, Christians, the Pope, Hindus, posh people, gypsies, Scottish people etc but the one group they have never made fun out of is Muslims. Its not that I care one bit whether they do or not but its an obvious display of double standards. However the show is on the BBC and no one on the BBC would dare put a Muslim or Islam in a comedy sketch.

Some would say Im just miserable and shouldn't let the politics be involved. Well perhaps I am miserable but thats why I watch a lot of comedy and I cannot ignore the political agenda when its drilled in to me. It wouldn't be so bad if it were done with much more intelligence but its not.

The two main actors are very good, but I see the taller one as the main talent by a long way. Everyone seems to like the shorter one the best but I think thats because he is short and fat. I think we will see the taller one go on to much greater things. Im also sure these two can write much better comedy and when they do I will happily write a glowing review.


Firstly let me start by saying that my vote of 7 is based on all 3 Series of the show. If I was voting for series 1 and 2 it would be a 10 but for Series 3, it would be 2.

Little Britain as im sure many of you know started out on Radio where it had two very successful series. Then it made the switch to TV. The Little Britain Pilot was shown on the launch night of BBC3 and I was hooked straight away.

Series One launched it to a wider audience on BBC3 and then BBC2. It was great. So funny, original with so many laugh out loud moments you couldn't count them.

Series Two was even better. Everything was neater and Lucas and Walliams had obviously got to grips with the characters they were writing for. The old faves were all there, Vicky Pollard, Emily Howard, Daffyd et all but some new ones were easily a match for these veterans. Bubbles, Florence, Judy and Maggie were all great and simply were the icing on the cake.

No this is where I turn nasty. Series 3 was very disappointing. Not nearly as funny as the first two and to be honest everything was a bit samey ans stail at this point. New characters were poorly constructed. Mrs Emery was simply a 2nd Maggie except it came out of the other end, Desere was a disaster simply because Bubbles was fine on her own and Sid Pegg was simply offensive and totally unfunny. It was left to the veterans to save the day, Daffyd, Vicky and Lou and Andy were the one saving grace for this series. The other thing I really disliked about LB3 was Lucas' and Walliams' apparent need to be in each other sketches all the time. We hardly saw the supporting cast because Matt and David were in everything. Although its their show, one of LB strengths was the supporting cast but sadly in Series 3 apart from the odd sketch (Like FatFighters) we never got to see them.

With a approaching Christmas Special which is supposed to tie up the ends for many Characters, we may soon be saying goodbye to Little Britain this may not be a bad thing however as its best to go out on top and if it continued, I believe it would start to flounder as if Series 3 is anything to go by, the ideas is simply not there.

So to sum up, Series' 1 and 2, simply floorless with some of the best and funniest comedy I have ever seen, Series 3 - Poor and if not for the old characters, simply a disaster! Roll on the Christmas Special!


Little Britain is perhaps the biggest British comedy of the past five years, and rightfully so. The hilarious writing, tremendous variety of characters, talented actors and memorable catchphrases elevate this from a fun night in to a must see comedy show. Little Britain Series 1 was great, Series 2 was also great, but the usual comedy formula that third series screw the whole thing up (as it did to "The Fast Show") works on Little Britain, and we were let down by a rather disappointing Series 3 last year. The peeing lady (Mrs Emery) was about as welcome to the show as an assassin, and about as effective as a catflap in an elephant house. Neighbourhood Watch Leader Sid Pegg was just forgettable, and Desiree DeVere's (Bubbles' new rival) fat suit looked generally fake. However, there were some hilarious sketches, and Desiree was probably the best new character of Series 3. However, the third series will never be as loved by all as either of the others, but was better than The Fast Show's Series 3 by a long shot.

On the whole, Little Britain is a great comedy, and should be seen by all as a taste of how comedy should be. No series or even episode is completely bad, and beats Catherine Tate hands down. A must see! 10/10


I like Little Britain very much indeed. I think that David Walliams and Matt Lucas are geniuses. They can get into the mind of so many creatures and almost be exactly like them.

I especially like the character Vicky Pollard, her role is so perfectly written and when Matt plays Vicky he brings a certain credibility to the role. I am also a big fan of Lou and Andy. David and Matt are just so sincere when the play them. I also fancy Ann (played by David), but that is manly because she's so funny.

I think that I've put enough effort to this so my final words are: GO LITTLE Britain!


What a kerfuffle!

Love 'em! My absolute fave! I simply love this show. Walliams and Lucas are very talented comedians, their show is bold, innovative and fun. A real feel-good-series. British comedy rocks! "Little Britain" deserves it's place in the Hall Of Fame with the likes of "French & Saunders", "Absolutely Fabulous" and "The League Of Gentlemen". Champagne!

Series 1,2 and 3 offer a plethora of delicious, lovable and crazy characters and sketches. Some controversial yeees, but that's the point of it. You just can't beat those catch-phrases, they will burn in your mind forever. No but, yeah but. Some characters and sketches tend to become a bit repetitive by the the time, but still, this is top quality entertainment! Don't give me evils!

I love Matt and David for givin me such a good time watching the series. Hopefully the boys continue their work and we'll see series 4..? See "Little Britain Live (2006)" available now on DVD!!! Eh Eh Eh!

Dust, anyone? No?


As people have different taste in everything, humor doesn't differ.

To me, this is one of the funniest British shows ever. It is in the top with Fawlty Towers, Bottom and The Fast Show (YES, Bottom is still funny).

Sure, it's tacky and rude, but isn't that a reflection of the world today. I can understand if some snobs don't like it because vomit and nakedness is a part of the show, but don't say that it's made by people who don't understand humor.

I'm Swedish and see a couple of Vicky Pollards on our streets every day. And I don't care if they're "repeating the same jokes every show". As long as it's funny that's fine by me. You can't be innovative with every single part of the show.

So, all in all, this is really the dogs b****cks!!


On my first view of Little Britain it didn't strike me as something that was hilariously funny. I found it witty and somewhat entertaining but wouldn't have rated it anywhere near English sitcoms such as The Office and the like..

However as I watched it more and began to understand the characters and relate them to stereotypes of everyday people the show began to "wow" me with how many layers of comedy are actually present.

From Daffyth - The only gay in the village, a stereotype that we know all too well to the Cross Dressing lady boys who act as though they want to remain subtle in their acts cross dressing however draw attention to themselves whenever possible.

These characters are real. David Walliams and Matt Lucas have really done English comedy proud by making fictional takes on real people. They manage to capture all demographics of audience with their mix of slapstick humour with more subtle comedy traits that audiences might not pick up on the first viewing.

Little Britain is a timeless classic - if you don't like it at first, give it another go. There is more to it than meets the eye...


Little Britain is the best thing to come out of the UK in ages. Matt Lucas and David Walliams deserve heaps more credit than they get already.

Everyone who thinks Little Britain sucks, have no sense of humour/ humor, and can't accept that Little Britain is funny even though it's not from the USA!!! When I watch Little Britain I can't stop laughing because the jokes are original and completely un-PC You should definitely watch Little Britain to see Vicky Pollard who is a ginger chick who can't make up her mind, and Lou and Andy (the guy who doesn't really need to be in a wheelchair and all the other hilarious characters.


I remember being rather excited about this show when the railers first appeared, even rushing out of the room whenever they came on as to not spoil the clips through over-saturation. This all seemed painfully ironic when after five minutes of the first episode I saw the same sketch, in a marginally different location, then another, and another. Not only this but there was a distinctly unfunny voice-over by the great Tom Baker and the worst laugh track I'd ever heard (since usurped by Hope And Faith's). By the end I had decided that I need never see another episode of Little Britain, apparently it was all in the trailers anyway. Occasionally dipping into "new" episodes every now and then has done nothing to disprove this.

Please try their earlier show Rock Profiles instead, it is far superior.


I am completely and utterly baffled by the runaway success of this show. I had heard so much hype about it that when I finally saw the first episode, I expected to be laughing to the point of tears. Instead, not only did I fail to laugh a single time, I actually groaned in disbelief on several occasions. The jokes were plain and simply awful.

The premise of this show is that it offers a hilarious caricature of life and people in Britain. This is only partially the case. Little Britain's characters do indeed resemble exaggerated versions of people in the UK, and they do mimic some Britishisms such as chavy 'yeah, but no, but yeah'. However, the characters are more like poor impersonations than true caricatures. And they most certainly are not hilarious.

There is no intelligence, depth, wit, sarcasm or insight into anyone or anything. Instead, sketches rely on repetition of lame catch-phrases and complete gross out humor. Even then, the gross-out is so poorly done when compared to shows such as South-Park or Family Guy in which disgusting scenes are used in context and with intelligence. This show cannot possibly appeal to you unless you have a sense of humor which stopped developing in primary school (or you actually are in primary school).

If you want a proper example of funny and witty caricatures of Britian, check out the Catherine Tate Show. The lewd and crude grandmother character is guaranteed to have you in stitches. For other great Brit comedies, check out the Green Wing, the Office, Black Adder and of course, the legendary Monty Python crew.


Little Britain is a badly made cheap sketch show which includes jokes that contain cheap fake British accents. The characters Lou & Andy are just a stupid idea, oh ha ha ha look there's Andy walking out of his wheel chair(the same jokes all the time). The Gay Welshman David, what's so funny about him? A person who is the only Gay in his village? People who live in bad area's of the UK will just keep watching this piece of crap. Just stick to your classic comedy like Hancock's Half Hour, Blackadder, Spitting Image, Mr Bean... Look ahead to 10 years from now, this will just be forgotten comedy!

I Give "Little Britain" A Mark Of 1 Out Of 5!


I guess this 'comedy' is aimed at an early teenage audience, in that they are the only ones who will (possibly) find it funny. It is juvenile without wit, intelligence or any of the qualities that make other British comedies so successful. What puzzles me about this is the unbelievable hype that has surrounded and engulfed it. Usually hype is warranted at some level, but in this case I can honestly say there is nothing in this shambles that justifies its reputation. Perhaps this is an indication that there really hasn't been anything decent on British TV for the past decade, save for Ricky Gervais. Lazy catchphrases, undeveloped characters, mind numbingly juvenile humour and an extremely annoying narration from Tom Baker, this is one Brit comedy that should be avoided at all costs. Go watch The Office or Alan Partridge instead.


I try to find humour in most things,but someone saying I'm the only gay in the village and repeating yer but no but. I admit it has me beat, I could watch it a million times and still struggle to find anything funny about it. It is about as funny as Ant and Dec are talented, and that's saying something. What is it about Little Britain people find funny, even the scene with the disabled guy is not funny. Perhaps, what I am missing, is that everything nowadays has to be politically correct so as not to offend anyone. If this is the case I can maybe understand the lack of humour in the show, perhaps what is most baffling, is how it won an award


I think this programme is overrated, it seemed like everywhere i went people were talking about it, so naturally i watched an episode. it was okay, there were a few laughs here and there, but after a couple of episodes it got boring, it's just recycled gags and basic toilet humour and David Walliams in a dress! Vicky Pollard is funny and i do know girls like her (God help us all) but just like the real Vicky Pollards, they are not funny forever and the other sketches are the same, how long can he be the only gay in the village and keep saying he is the only gay in the village? The characters are grotesque versions of real people, which seems a good idea for comedy but after a while the level of comedy is so basic that i forget to laugh because you've seen it all before.

I understand it has an audience but it's definitely not worth the hype, feel the same way about this as i do Catherine Tate 'Am i bothered?' 'Yeah but no but yeah...' it's all so repetitive. there are far superior sketch shows, older ones like Monty Python's flying circus is inventive, artistic and new for the time, if Little Britain represents Modern Britain, god help us all.


The only people who find this show funny are teenagers, Anglophile Americans, middle class people who think this stuff is cutting edge and people with questionable intellect.

When this show first appeared, it seemed to be genuinely making an attempt to be fresh, interesting and relevant to modern Britain but it quickly became apparent that it is, in fact nothing more than an 1/2 hour Carry on film, only with less subtlety and innovation.

If you want cutting edge British Comedy then go for Blackadder, The Day today, i'm Alan Partridge, Brasseye, Spaced, The Fast Show, The Office or the excellent Peep Show.

If on the other hand you want silly, surreal yet still very funny British comedy then go for Garth Marenghi, The Mighty Boosh, The IT crowd or Even dare i say, Red Dwarf.

Little Britain may make you smirk from time to time but essentially this is the most god awful piece of crap imaginable. People who think this is funny, will look back in ten years time and feel embarrassed and ashamed of themselves. Most likely, they'll claim they never liked it at all. This isn't just a step backwards in the history of the magnificent British comedy scene, it's a jump

Avoid at all costs.....it's total, utter crud!


Little Britain is a hilarious British Comedy that stars Matt Lucas and David Walliams that play several characters each. This has made me laugh in many ways such as Marjorie Dawes (Fat Fighters), Carol "Computer Says No" Beer, Judy and Maggie, Mr Mann, "Bubbles" De Vere etc.

Most of it gives me a laugh although it gets repetitive and predictable after a while and it's not so funny. Always watch a couple of episodes at once because of that reason Ignoring that it is a typical British comedy that will lighten you up when you are feeling down. Great show and very funny. 4.5/5


On Sky Three recently, they showed a repeated episode of "Futurama". In this particular episode, Bender becomes a star on a robotic soap opera. One scene featured some notorious television executives storming into the set demanding safe yet unoriginal concepts. Anyone with some knowledge of the TV industry (or any area of the media) know that executives everywhere are prone to dumbing down products that could have been amazing. I'm worried that this happened to "Little Britain". It could have been totally amazing, yet seemed repetitive. Could too many executives have slightly spoilt the broth? I first saw an episode of "Little Britain" three years ago and found it a wonderful comedy series; it was farcical, fresh and entertaining. It looked like it was up there with "The Office" as one of the best recent British comedy series.

Then in mid 2004, the big boom in "Little Britain" interest came. Merchandise poured out, the DVD sold like hotcakes, and it seemed like "Little Britain" had firmly sealed its place up there as a classic TV series; it probably won't be something like "Herman's Head" or "A Sharp Intake of Breath" that fades into obscurity after it gets shown first time round (as a matter of fact, how many know what actually happened in these things?); I personally think that it will probably be like "Friends", "Cheers", "Only Fools and Horses" and "Blackadder" in that even an old repeat will bring in decent figures.

As a result, everyone in Britain began to love the characters and their behaviour. This is where I feel the series began to take a dip thanks to TV executives demanding what they think people want, since soon into the second series, the same old routines and gags kept on popping up again and again. The most blatant case was with the Lou and Andy scenes. In these, a geeky carer named Lou looks after a fat person with special needs named Andy. It seemed as though Andy's catchphrase "yeah, I know" kept on recurring again and again, and the routine of Andy wanting something then not liking it once receiving it became as time-worn as various pantomime routines. The addition of characters like Bubbles and Ping Pong through the last two series didn't help.

Don't get me wrong; "Little Britain" was still good through the second and third series, and characters like the travel agent and Vicky Pollard were brilliant. It just seemed to have suffered from repetition, which I have begun to suspect occurred due to the powers at the BBC (it should be noted that Series One was made for the experimental channel BBC Three originally, so along with the fact that it was new, that could be why the first few episodes were strong). It's definitely worth watching, but try and see the first series if you want the best of this comedy.


As Daniel O'Rourke said, you either love Little Britain or you hate it. I personally love it.

My favourite characters are: Ray Macooney, The man with the spicy food in the restaurant, the woman who works at the university, Lou and Andy, Majorie Dawes,Mollie Sugden's bridesmaid, Sid Pegg, Bubbles and Carol Beer only to name a few. The characters I didn't like were: Kenny Craig, Dennis Waterman and Dafydd Thomas and the one I absolutely hated was the one where a young David Walliams fancies the Grandma.

A great sketch show that is very popular amongst young children. I didn't like Little Britain Abroad though, it failed to make me laugh. Tom Baker is brilliant at doing the narration.


Little Britain I can safely say is probably my new favourite show, it's so creative and hilarious, and even the parts that some people might get offended by don't quite cross that line, making it perfect. I can watch it over and over and never get bored! There's so many great quotes in there to that you can say randomly and will always be funny. Even in the sketches where you know what's going to happen, or what the characters going to say, it still manages to make you laugh. Anyone who doesn't like this show must be crazy I say. Matt and David are like, my heroes now, they're so talented at taking on all those different roles and pulling them off so well! They are comedic geniuses, it's not often you find actors who are so extremely versatile, even at acting as the opposite sex.

I'd say Little Britain is an instant classic, and I hope to see much more of it in the future!


Version: Japanese, with English subtitles (by SBS)

With my knowledge of Japanese horror movies limited to the 'Ringu' and Takashi Miike's 'Audition', I caught this on SBS one night. I really liked 'Audition', but I found the Ring movies to be rather boring, so I watched this few expectations. When it was over, I was pretty impressed.

Misa Kuroi (Kimika Yoshino) is a witch, her secret means she gets transferred from school to school. Rumours constantly follow her - they say that people in her presence are prone to dying. Naturally, dark forces at work at her new school, and one night, Misa and twelve other students (that makes 13, get it?) are locked in the school. They will all die unless Misa can protect them.

Story wise, it isn't very original, but its still rather interesting. Horror wise, it is pretty good. Dealing with the occult and supernatural, 'Wizard of Darkness' is stylish and gory. Nice special effects, and what surprised me was the fact that there were good actors in what is essentially gory teen-horror.

It gets a bit Japanese at times, and if you've seen a few Japanese horror or action movies, you'll know what I'm talking about, e.g. unusual situations involving lesbians. If you don't like these movies, then maybe its best to avoid 'Wizard of Darkness, as it features unusual situations involving lesbians, among other things.

8/10 - Check it out if you like Japanese horror, or horror in general.


Misa Kuroi is the new mysterious girl at a Japanese High School, who knows about witchcraft and this, is what has drawn her to this place. Something evil is lurking and she's there to put an end to it. She gains respect from her fellow pupils when she confesses to being a witch, when she performs curse on a hated teacher and it works. However it all changes, when the teacher actually turns up in a very severe accident. She gets the blame, as gossip spreads that people close to her die. During an after school exam, Misa and twelve students get locked in for the night and their teacher has disappeared. When they try to escape, there seems to be some sort of force stopping them from leaving and trying to kill them off. There only chance rests on Misa, but trying to convince them to trust her is another matter.

We get a change of pace with this quirky, surrealistic, lurid and highly bold low-budget occult / supernatural / slasher J-horror film, which is inspired by Shinichi Koga's 70's Manga comics. Yes, there's no vengeful spirits here. The film basically exploits its risqué moments at every opportunity with candid lesbian acts (teacher and student relationship) that follow onto unpleasantly gruesome details in what you can call spicy camp.

Director Shimako Sato stylishly paints an edgy shocker with grisly set pieces worked into a claustrophobic atmosphere of dread, which hangs over the latter half of the film. The cheap feel to it all works to its advantage with its limited sets (basically all set in the school grounds), and the adept special effects and macabre make-up comes off extremely potent and well organised. While the majority of the pacing in the opening half slowly kicks off in first gear, it's not until just after the halfway mark where the tempo gets frenetic and the blood splatter hits the fans. Lurking within the haunting context is a cold and creepy tenor, which makes the inventive deaths incredibly blood curdling. The sweeping camera work that's dreamt up can capture some uncanny frames and lighting is kept rather under-lit to breath a really unsteady gloominess. In the background is a faintly effective and wistful music score. The story is nothing we haven't seen before, but it still comes off fresh and stable with its interesting idea, which silly overtones can feature and convoluted actions creep up. Nonetheless it keeps a disorientating and tense feeling on how things are going to turn out in the end.

There's not much of a background to the witch Misa in this story, as she's pretty much thrown right into this one and we got to accept it, even though this vagueness could frustrate. This would be the first of four chapters of this character. And the second entry (which isn't too bad and reminded of "The Terminator") would go onto be a prequel, which explained a lot about Misa's past and how she became to be a witch. The static script throws around plenty of witchcraft mumbo jumbo and lets the mystery unfold perfectly fine with few well-disguised red herrings and pawn-figures. The usual twists are also thrown in for good measure.

Performances range from brooding to flamboyant, but either way it always amused. Kimika Yoshino in the lead part brings a quiet determination in her strong performance as Misa. Naozumi Takahashi lives it up, in the part of the jealous, wannabe wizard student and Miho Kanno keeps it all innocent and soft as Misa's friend. A stellar Ryoka Yuzuki looks steamy, but strikes up a flinty barrier in her small part and Mio Takaki makes for a stoically steely turn as the teacher Shirai.

A dark, foreboding teen J-horror film in the area of black magic, which it's bumpy pacing can get just too causal. Well worth the peek for fans.


I saw this movie on SBS (Australia) two years ago and have scanned the TV guide for it to come on again every week since! I loved it! This movie is the reason that I first became interested in learning Japanese language and about the culture (and I'm still doing it with the intention of becoming a teacher in Japan).

I found the end to be, like a lot of movies that build you up, quite disappointing, but the attractiveness of the actors and the relative originality of the plot more than made up for it. Yoshino Kimika's character Misa is captivating - you can *see* she's no normal Japanese high school girl. Yoshino's doubtful earlier movie career must have brightened considerably on the release of this movie.

However, Yoshino is not the only star in this production. Miho Kanno plays the submissive sacrificial lamb of the school, and with her plaintive face and doe eyes, you just can't help but go 'Awww' whenever she appears on the screen. The others, and unfortunately I can't remember all of their name, are equally as satisfying.

For those of you who can't or won't understand Japanese culture, this movie may confuse you and frustrate you. However, those more open-minded of you who are willing to look past the cover, please see this movie!! I can't guarantee you won't be disappointed, but after all, beauty is in the eye of the movie critic.

10 out of 10 for some great work by all involved.


This was on the other night on SBS really late (for those not in Australia this is the foreign channel). Being a big fan of Japanese horror films I waited up to watch it. Its really not bad! The film opens with a particularly gruesome death scene - which got my attention straight away - and it is suggested it was caused by these people using voodoo dolls. We are then introduced to a high school and a new girl at the school. Lots of strange things happen at this school, perverted teachers, mysterious deaths, suicides and the like. It seems that the new girl is in fact a witch and is investigating all the evil occurrences until one night when 13 students are locked in the school and they have to escape or die trying from those trying to summon the devil. Nothing is really explained, some character depth , but very little. Being Japanese Horror there is of course a fair level of unnecessary sexual scenes (girl on girl). Being female I found this quite amusing, but if you don't approve of completely unnecessary sex scenes I'd give it a miss. So all in all good horror, no plot connecting, sex and violence - ingredients of a good B grade horror and all the better because it is Japanese B grade horror, which is always much classier than our B Grade horror! 4/10 Don't rush out and buy it but if you come across it it is worth a peek.


GamerZ tells the story of a D&D campaign and the relationships between its players. Its charm is multi-faceted, the idiosyncratic (and mostly very geeky) central characters are treated with a gently mocking affection, appealing both to roleplayers (who will have a whale of a time spotting the in-jokes and laughing at the stereotypes) and the general public. There are hidden treats in almost every minor role, generally superbly played, and the Glasgwegian setting is pitch-perfect, from the slang used to the contrasting influences in the main character's life. GamerZ is also technically interesting - rotoscoping (or 'shadowplay') techniques are used to evoke the fantasy game world the characters enter.

All in all, a great laugh, and an excellent job in making a film about a minority interest appealing to the general public.


On one level GamerZ follows a group of people for whom reality has two meanings: Their own persona, and that of their role-play game character. The film slowly twists one persona into the other - both on screen and in the mind of the viewer. Ultimately it blurs the line between genius and insanity, fantasy and reality, in quite a thought-provoking way.

At a second level, it attempts to create interesting dialogue between characters that are socially inept outcasts, whose prime activity is sitting round a table rolling dice. This could have created a very boring script indeed, but with a few exceptions, it doesn't. Instead GamerZ revels in its freedom to jump from the horrific to the sublime, from the lucid to the inane. Often in the same shot. The failure of the characters to interact 'normally' makes some exceptional comedy. Unfortunately GamerZ's screenplay is weakened by its meagre special effects budget. While attempts to convey 'in-game' actions using silhouettes almost work, there are a few moments when the cardboard cutouts on screen seek only to remind the viewer that Hollywood would never make a movie like this.

Down at level three GamerZ is underscored by some quite familiar themes of love, envy and growing maturity; not to mention fetishes, joyriding, and a few other things. These themes meld well with the earlier levels, but probably won't hold the film together on their own.

I suspect that if you find yourself stuck at level 3 of the dungeon, you'll walk out disappointed. This film isn't for everyone. But open your mind a little and GamerZ achieves something quite rare. It entertains and challenges. And it does both in a quite unexpected way.


The subject matter of this film is hilariously familiar, the story is bizarre and the relationships between the characters are believable, complex and well-written. On one level it's a superb comedy, but it also works as a drama. It was a pleasant surprise as I had no idea what to expect when I went to see it. I will be recommending 'GamerZ' to people for a long time to come.

I would recommend this film to anybody who enjoyed 'Napoleon Dynamite'. It's got a similar geeky charm, great dialogue and the pace never lags. It's a funny, bittersweet film about the small things in life, things which seem like a big deal when they happen.


I saw this film at a special screening at a RPG convention in Dublin, Ireland called Gaelcon. I couldn't get into the first screening on the Saturday evening as numbers were restricted and the show was full. Fortunately for me they showed it again on the Sunday evening due to the demand.

It is a Scottish independent full-length comedy film about a misfit group of gamers and their geek lust for crazy Goth chick that believes she is an elf. On the face of it seems just a simple farce with clichéd characters but it does then start exploring the characters more deeply in the later part of the film. We learn that everyone has more to them than the 'masks' of the characters they portray in the in-movie game. The Celtic nature of the film adds to its magic, the Glaswegian landscape is just beautiful and the cast is very talented.

It stars Edward Tudor-Pole and Eileen McCallum and introduces new talent Ross Finbow, James Young and Danielle Stewart as the ill- fated, star-crossed lovers. It is a funny movie and most role-players will see someone that they recognise (maybe themselves?) in the characters portrayed.

It was a very good film, the audience at Gaelcon loved it as far as I could tell, with lots of laughter and some knowing nods now and again. Though they maybe the target audience for this film non-gamers will find it enchanting as well.


What a fantastic movie! Great characters you can't help but love, a quirky upbeat soundtrack and 100 minutes of pure fun! You really go on the journey with these characters and are excited by their relationships and antics. Excellent performances, fantastic cinematography and loads of laughs (fabulous writing and direction). GamerZ shows the comic side of Gaming and has characters everyone will recognise. Dungeons and Dragons took itself too seriously - this takes us back to the fun element of role-playing games and you really get involved with the game young Ralph has created. This is a film for everyone, we all know these people and it's interesting to see how a single interest can connect such different people. They may well be pariahs but you can't help but like them. Although the film is set in Glasgow it could be anywhere, any university campus with any group of people with a single interest. It's truly a universal film. There are some fabulous comedy moments which really do have you laughing out loud. I urge everyone to see this film. You don't have to have been a Gamer to enjoy this film, I'm not and I loved it. Give us more, Pure Magic Films - PLEASE!


GamerZ is the sort of movie that could only come from a country like Scotland, and only from a city like Glasgow. The movie is, simply put, one of the freshest comedies to emerge from this isle for as long as I can remember. From the innovative 'shadowplay' to bizarre, wonderful characterisation, the movie manages to carry off a wonderful sense of involvement on what must be a meagre budget.

On first glance, the movie may seem to be pushing at the 'weirdness' card a bit too much. A cynic may look to point at the possibility of caricature in some of the characters, or even the plot itself, which almost seems orchestrated to produce as much overly bizarre humour as possible. But that's kind of missing the point. GamerZ is not some Loachian social melodrama, nor is it a Coen Brothers-style exercise in complex, surreal comedy. GamerZ carves its own niche, thanks to an involving script and the deftly-handled direction. Whilst it's not complex in the sense of deep philosophical themes, or complex social issues, it finds its own distinctive, immersing style- and gleefully runs with it until you can't help but fall in love.

Maybe i'm biased. I live in Glasgow and attend the University where GamerZ is set- heck, i'm even a member of a similar society. Even so, I would urge everyone to see GamerZ- despite the setting being very specific, the inventiveness and hilariousness of the film ensures that even those who've never seen six-sided dice (or couldn't pick out Scotland on a world map) are nigh-on guaranteed to be choking on their popcorn and quoting chunks of dialogue for days afterwards.

'Pure Magic' has never been such an appropriate tag-line.


OK, I've just been at the premiere, and I know one of the cast members, and my ticket got me free beer, but this is a great little film. As somebody who came to university in Glasgow and found outlets for my more esoteric habits I found myself nodding and laughing redolently at many points, although I should add that I was never into the fantasy role playing contained herein. I fear this subject matter may put some people off, but the film is about so much more than that- it's a refreshing look at young folk in Glasgow that avoids so many of the usual clichés, while it perfectly addresses the myriad people one meets in the city, and the culture shock. I could pick a couple of points in the script which could have done with more development and resolution, but ultimately this is exactly the kind of film Scotland should be producing, and I'm shocked that it hasn't received more media attention here.

That said, how can you turn left outside the G.U.U. and find yourself outside the reading room? You'd need to turn right! God, I hate myself.


When my husband picked out this movie out at Blockbuster I was expecting a movie I would cringe at and probably never finish watching. Being one half of a gaming couple who met online I tend to get impatient when all gaming females and males are portrayed in the same way. Although this movie is guilty of complete stereotyping, I surprisingly found it very enjoyable and funny. It is genuinely humorous, does not take itself seriously and the characters although stereotyped are very likable (but definitely far into the weird side even for someone who has played fantasy games).

I had no trouble with the dialect due to being British and having lived in Edinburgh for 5 years while I was at university. I could however see it being a barrier for people unfamiliar with Scottish slang, although if someone could understand "Trainspotting" they should have no trouble with this movie.

The fantasy sequences were done using "shadow-play" which in my mind was definitely one of the best decisions of the film makers. It let people (particularly non-gamers) see what the players were visualizing without looking silly, and the art landscapes were nicely drawn.

Overall it was an enjoyable film that should appeal to anyone with a lighthearted sense of humor. If you liked "Napoleon Dynamite" you will definitely like this!


Definitely worth seeing. There is a lot of rubbish out there generally. A big budget and big hype certainly do not make a good movie but they make the general public and, even I am ashamed to say, me, more likely to see them. Which is unfortunate not least because movies like Gamerz can easily be overlooked.

The story does not involve complex characters, what it does have is believable and honest characters that are easy to relate to. Its a feel good story which doesn't try or pretend to be more. It's easy to watch with some genuinely funny moments. While obviously not produced with a big budget, It's well crafted.


No good deed based on a short story by Dashiell Hammett is kind of movies that have many elements and themes of a classic film no-ire but it is not exactly one of them. The themes include a robbery plan that goes awry though here it is more of a con rather than robbery and it is executed without resorting to violence. Second theme is domed love

which in this movie is rather short, more of this later. The elements include mastermind and ruthless gangster, a femme fatal , and rude maniac hit-man. And add to these people a

couple that had a dream of living happily ever after. The strength of the movie is in building up of its characters. They all do what they are expected to do whether they act strongly or

weakly. Their strength and weakness comes from their personalities and not from the requirement of the plot. Erin character is the main difference of this movie from classic femme fatal. As a kept girl with ten percent rebate on pedicure expense, though she is cunning in some scenes , but she is also deadly frightened. Her motives are dark at worst and suspicious at best, but in her main thrust of manipulations (getting rid of Tyrone) she deserves our sympathy. Other characters do not show something unexpected ,but the story has enough power and twist that make the movie worthwhile and interesting. Movie scenes are limited, and most of it is in closed places which intensifies a sense of claustrophobia. This kind of story which has little physical action and is mainly based on suspenses needs good acting, that fortunately this movie does not lack it. This movie shows that good noir still can be made and their time has not passed yet


Having watched this film, I became bored after about 30 minutes and as it was only just over 90 minutes long I persevered in the hope it would improve!! No chance!!!

The Gang of Six were the WORST band of thieves ever put together in the history of Film Thieves!! Santa Claus, Granny, Psycho, a Member of the Adams family and 9 Toes! All in sync with the dodgy bloke in the bank, who made it so obvious what was going on, he'd have been sussed in an instance!!!

A slow, boring plot....a slow, boring cast....totally lacked invention and motivation.....PLUS, whatever happened to the missing girl???? If her mother was that bothered, why did she never get suspicious when Jack Friar (S L J) never returned???

Dire, Drab and waste of time...If anyone else gets the chance to watch this....DON'T!


Samuel L. Jackson, Milla Jovovich and the rest display fairly good acting throughout the entirety of the movie, but it seems almost as if the story was written on the fly. The bank rip-off seems pretty well thought through but everything after that just seems like crap, plotwise. On a positive note (at least for us guys) Milla Jovovich is particularly sexy in this movie in her wardrobe and brief Stockholm-syndrome-fling with Jackson. It still burns the hell out of me that Best Buy carries this DVD while Equilibrium was no where to be found.


As Roger Ebert said in his review, brilliant, literate film noir with excellent performances...particularly Milla Jovovitch as the femme fatale. A steamy seductress tried to seduce a cop with her beauty and stunning abilities as a pianist. Samuel Jacksin is the cello play cop who wanders into a nest of thieves...some brutal the other weirdly comical. Dashiell Hammett to the core. Well worth your seeing.


This is a film that deserves to be seen. Though it is getting no publicity, WORD OF MOUTH, should serve this very special film. A solid performance by Sam

Jackson and all of the supporting cast. Bob Rafelson, a very famous director of such classics as FIVE EASY PIECES and THE POSTMAN ALWAYS RINGS

TWICE, has brought his talents to this movie. It looks fantastic too. As in most film noir movies, like the "Big Sleep", there are story holes occasionally, but the acting, tension, dark humor and fast pace, keep you interested always. There is nothing boring. If you like dark movies with tough minded actors, this will not disapoint you.

This movie reminds you of so many good films that Bogart and Bacall made. I give thumbs up and a 10 !


Talented cast, director, screenwriter update good 1920s Hammett short story into full-length film. The expanded story (100X more stolen $$ !) retains the theme that criminals are doomed by the double-cross, and the resourceful detective is a better chess player once the plan goes awry. Jovavich seems as beautifully dangerous as other relatively recent worthy contenders for the "film" fatale pantheon like Fiorentino, J-Lo, Boyle, Russell. Thoughtful plot twists as players strive to gain the upper hand (although intricacies of the embezzlement eluded me). Odd "gang" could have stepped right out of the Maltese Falcon. The filmmakers left their heart, if not their Turk St., in San Francisco.


'No Good Deed' as the DVD of the film was titled here is an average adaptation of a short story of the 'noire' classic Dashiel Hammet. It is not a coincidence that many of the clichees of the genre are repeated here - the platinate blonde, the sophisticated evil criminals, the good old lady who is not really who she seems to be, etc. The crime part of the story is not very catching, and the really interesting part if the zig-zag the main female character is doing between the different men in the story. Milla Jovovitch is very good in this film, reminding me the role Kim Bassinger got an Oscar for. Also there are quite a lot of mis-matches and not everything makes perfect sense in the plot, the result is over all an agreeable mix, and a fair entertainment. 7/10 on my personal scale.


I genuinely enjoyed this movie. A previous comment said something to the effect of an observation that cliches riddle certain parts, but I think it's important to note that this was written in the 1920s, when perhaps those cliches were not quite so pervasive. And the ending isn't nearly as cliche as I would expect from that era.

Samuel L Jackson delivers a worthy performance as Jack, adding his signature personality to the role while still maintaining the spirit of the character.

Milla is good looking as usual, and like all her other movies, gets naked for a minute. Her performance is decent.

I'd give this movie a 7 out of 10

WARNING, SPOILER FOLLOWS.

what REALLY sells me on this movie is the direction it takes. I think you sort of have to put yourself into the 1920s mindset that women are women, and the real character to watch is the hero. IF you do that, then Erin is what a woman was classically considered to be; dependant, in search of a man, hedging her bets to be with the man most apt to provide for her.

Then the story is really about Jack and the decisions he has to make; conflict between his desire for Erin and his honorable, uncompromising personality. Whereas most western movies have the hero triumph over evil, giving him the kingdom and the girl in the process as a reward, here there is a twist; the hero defeats the villain, but chooses not to take the kingdom OR the girl, choosing instead to maintain his honor.

In this regard, the story mimics many classic works of samurai fiction, for example, where the hero denies his own desires in the name of a personal moral code. Also, what is not cliche is the movie's acknowledgement that the real world rarely rewards good character, and the path of virtue and honor is usually a lonely one. The ending is surprising, sad, and lonely, yet somehow gratifying and assuring.


"No Good Deed" is a way-above-average character driven thriller. The fact that it is based on short story by Dashiell Hammett puts in a class above the rest with a story-line that is frighteningly plausible. Boasting a stellar cast including Samuel L Jackson, Stellan Skasgaard and Milla Jovovich it is highly suspenseful with a cracking script. Stellan Skasgaard delivers his lines with relish and Milla Jovovich is highly believable in her role as a woman who plays all the men against each other. Grace Zabriskie and Joss Ackland steal the show, however, with their portrayals of a thief-couple in their twilight years. All, in all, highly recommended for a nights entertainment for those who like their thrillers a little more cerebral than the norm.


Evidently this film was released overseas before it was seen locally. Bob Rafelson is an excellent screen writer who knows a lot about what is going on in the American cinema. As a director, he doesn't bring anything new to this Dashiell Hammett's short story adaptation. Perhaps he wasn't helped by the screen play of Christopher Canaan.

The Hammett story was one of his best ones. The idea of the kind policeman, Jack Friar, trying to investigate something for a neighbor, brings him into a situation that will ensnare him, as he discovers the people in the house are planning a caper and take him prisoner.

The acting is interesting in general. Samuel L. Jackson has to act tied to a chair throughout the movie. His scene with Erin, played with gusto by Milla Jovovich, brings a sensuality to the screen that adds another dimension to the story. Stellan Skargard makes a mean Tyrone. Doug Hutchison is intense as Hoop, Tyrone's partner in crime. Grace Zabriskie and Joss Ackland are seen as the Quarres, a couple that are involved in the robbery. Ms. Zabriskie, an excellent actress, has great moments as the older woman who presents a kind front, but is no good. Joss Ackland, a veteran English stage and screen actor, doesn't have much to do.

The film, while predictable, offers some good moments. Bob Rafelson knows how to motivate his actors to give above the average performances.


Rework a Dashiell Hammett short story for the screen, get Samuel L. Jackson to play Bogart and Milla Jojovich to play Bacall, and you've got one heck of an entertaining little movie. I seriously liked all the performances, but I was especially taken by Milla Jojovich. You know she's bad but she's also irresistible. She pulls that off, too, and not many actresses could. They don't make many movies like this anymore and that's a shame. Delightful!


A pretty decent drama/thriller. I watched it because of Samuel L. Jackson. In this one, as usual, he plays his role with a quiet, understated charisma. Milla Jovovich was beautiful, more so than I have seen her before. She had a brief nude scene in this film. She shows some measure of courage going topless with her quite small breasts. I say more power to her. To all the aspiring actresses out there getting advice, let this show that if you have some talent, you don't have to mutilate yourselves with implants. Just say no! But I digress. The supporting cast did well, also. Stellan Skarsgard was suitably menacing, Joss Ackland was suitably eccentric, Doug Hutchison was suitably psychotic. The plot, with a small number of characters, could as well have come from a play as a Hammett story. Bob Rafelson's direction was unobjectionable. Overall, I'd say check it out.


I just thought this movie was not that good. I had never heard of it and thought I would check it out because I love Milla Jovovich and Sam Jackson. I picked it up previously viewed and popped it in and... blah. That is the best way I can describe this movie. It was just blah. Nothing special at all and just bland. Milla is beautiful and looks great and she does her best as does Sam Jackson but I don't think anything can save this snooze fest. If you have nothing else to do and there is nothing else on TV and you don't have to clean or clip your toe nails and if there is no paint pealing off the walls you can watch, and or you are a Jovovich fan, give it a shot but its really just not that good. BLAH.


The best part of this movie, is Milla's backside.

The movie starts with a premise that Samuel's character is out looking for a runaway girl. That disappears. Then, the antagonist gang takes him hostage, well, sort of. No real reason to do this, other than that they think they've been discovered. But, from there, it's all lost. Samuel L. Jackson is the protagonist, but he's tied to a chair for 2/3's of the movie!

Then there's the absurd robbery by an apparently blind man (in clear glasses, so you can see his eyes move and react), and his cohort, and evil little blonde-haired troll, who's NEVER accosted, not once, while walking directly into the power room of the bank. He's able to amazingly hack into the bank's computers, and shut the power off to the whole building. Somehow, I think that ALL transactions would be off, regardless of the circumstances at that point - but maybe that's just me. Then, there's the wimpy banker that just HAS to get his rocks off BEFORE they flee the country, and the little wa***r troll that's too stupid to realize that he shouldn't kill the only man who knows the all-important "password", and the account information is stored on a 3.5 inch disk, right (dated technology there, why not on a reel tape?). They whiz through banks at a breakneck pace, withdrawing large sums of money, without so much as a batting of the eye. I'm not even going to get into Samuel and Milla's musical interlude while she has him untied. Mr. officer, I think, might have had a trick up his sleeve to elude her and get out of the house at that point.

Bad movie, bad plot, bad characters, the kind of movie that's 97 minutes long and you'd swear you've been watching it for 4 hours. Terrible.


The story it's so stupid that you can't feel that this movie can be truth... and the acting is so bad that it's makes a really bad movie.. and the end it's really worse, see it and you will see what i'm saying. 4/10 stars only for samuel l. jackson performance. Milla do a really bad acting.


viewed movie as NO GOOD DEED: I found the plot to be somewhat plausible, however, there were many errors in the movie. Samuel L. Jackson (character Jack Friar) is believable, though not one of his better movies. Milla Jovovich (character Erin) is an extremely shallow character. Jack Friar is looking for a blond-haired, blue-eyed male, and Doug Hutchison (character Hoop) thinks it is him -- however, Hoop is dyed blonde-haired with brown eyes. Poor cinematography in rain storm -- view of characters inside a car through side mirrors in a torrential downpour -- I have never seen a vehicle with clear side mirrors in a rain storm. Another very poor item is the Canadian border crossing is shown as Sudbury. This is an insult to Canadian viewers -- Sudbury is at least a 9 hour drive NORTH of the US-Canadian border. Shame on producers -- filming in Montreal Quebec and didn't know enough of Ontario's geography to be at least plausible. Sorely disappointed that Samuel L. Jackson would let his good name be associated with such a poor quality movie.


There's a reason why this film took a limited release and little fanfare despite having some solid actors in the line-up. However, it just goes to show what sloppy direction can lead when the concept of creation comes into effect. Samuel L. Jackson is too typical, Milla Jovovich is WAY too typical, and Doug Huchison is rather disappointing. I won't even talk about Stellan Skarsgaard. The acting is where the whole story went south, considering the story was pretty decent. I guess I am one of the few who got to see this film, considering I was the only one in the theater when I watched it.


One of the worst plot I have seen, absolutely non sense!!!!! The most stupid scene is the romantic one, the girl go for some insulin and brings also the cello, the score for piano and cello and also the music stand!!!!!!!!!!!!! I can not imagine this girl getting down from the second floor by the stairs with all this stuff.......whahhhhhhhhhhh


This is one of the worst movies I have ever seen. The spanish title for this movie was "sin motivo aparante" which means with no aparent motive. It should have been called with no aparent plot.


Hammett's short story "The House on Turk Street" is 23 taut pages in my 1974 paperback of his "Continental Op" stories. It's a terrific tale. It takes place all in the same San Francisco house, in one afternoon, with an uneasy band of robbers, hiding out between robberies with a bag of loot, and the fat private eye who stumbles into them by chance.

This movie shifts everything to the East Coast and expands the tale to include cyber-crime, crooked bankers, airplanes to the Bahamas, a road trip to Albany, New York, etc, etc, etc.

Why?

Not much is gained, and what's lost is all the high-powered charm and intensity of the original story. Instead of a claustrophobic battle of wits (with guns added), we have a flaccid, spread-out tale of people tapping at computers, trying to figure out passwords, and shouting at each other. And yes, Milla Jovovich taking a convenient shower.

Samuel L. Jackson's character is a perfect example of "more is less." In the original story, the detective is a pudgy, disheveled, nameless but likable PI. Jackson is a policeman, he plays the cello expertly, he has diabetes (!), and he has racial issues with everyone making wisecracks about him being black.

Why load him up with so much baggage? And why does his simply disappear for large chunks of the movie? I'm willing to accept that the original short story might be impossible to film, or might make only a 40-minute movie. But they tried and failed to make it into a full-length movie here.

Screen writing is certainly hard, and there's no point hammering these filmmakers for trying and failing. But they sure made some strange and hard-to-explain choices. It's too bad.


This movies story line is all over the map, the way the movie starts off is just goofy, i'm not going to go into details but this movie is just plain ****. The acting was crappy the only thing this movie had going for it is that Samuel Jackson was in it thats it. This movie isn't worth renting, I rented it when it first came out on DVD what a waste of 4.50 this movie is someones idea of a sick joke.

Picture starting to watch a movie have way in, because thats what it feels like when you start watching this, They don't explain a god dam thing. This movie is about as good as being kicked in the nuts, All i can do is give you a heads up by saying this movie makes battle field earth look OK.


Chuck Jones's 'Scaredy Cat' is the best of the few pairings of Porky Pig and Sylvester. Casting Porky as Sylvester's owner (Sylvester is more cat-like than usual, remaining silent for the whole cartoon), 'Scaredy Cat' finds the pair moving into a spooky mansion which terrifies Sylvester from the outset. Rather than ghosts, however, the mansion is populated by murderous mice who ritually execute their victims. Somehow this makes 'Scaredy Cat' all the more frightening. And it is frightening! There are several morbid sequences including a scene of a cat being carted off to his death by a mousey executioner and a moment in which Sylvester attempts suicide rather than being sent out to face the vicious vermin alone. Most terrifying of all though, is an infamous sequence in which the mice take Sylvester to the basement. We never see what they do to him but he emerges nearly three hours later, a pale white zombie scared rigid by what he has experienced. It's a classic example of the human mind conjuring up far worse scenarios when the details are left to the imagination. All in all, 'Scaredy Cat' is an indelibly creepy and extremely well staged cartoon which relies on horror as much as laughs to achieve its impact.


In most cartoons starring Sylvester the Cat that are directed by Friz Freling or Robert McKimson, the pussycat is usually the aggressor who's after either Tweety or Hippity Hopper, the baby kangaroo mistaken for a giant mouse either by the red-nosed feline or his son, Sylvester, Jr. In Chuck Jones' Scaredy Cat, he's Porky Pig's mute pet who, despite many attempts of signaling his master of danger, gets admonished as being delusional since Porky always sees something different. This change of characterization is quite convincing in Jones' hands and he stages many scenes of mice about to carry another cat for execution quite atmospheric. The rodents look like Hubie and Bertie, by the way. Quite funny scenes of Porky just being nonchalant almost the whole way when weird things happen behind his back. The ending may be lost to modern audiences but Scaredy Cat is mostly successful in being spooky and highly amusing at the same time.


This is one of two cartoons I have watched with Porky and Sylvester (the other being "Jumpin' Jupiter"). Personally, I thought this cartoon worked very well, with a new theme of horror (which is both funny and freaky) and the fact that Sylvester never speaks and is a great deal more of a coward than a hunter of Tweety (who is not in this cartoon whatsoever). Porky is an entertaining character here, who is especially heart-warming closer to the end.

In this short, Porky and Sylvester have moved into a big, spooky house and Sylvester is terrified of his new surroundings. He has good reason to be terrified, as the house is populated with horribly murdering mice. Sylvester, as he is a cat who cannot speak, cannot tell Porky of the horrible creatures in the house and just stays close to his owner, hoping that they will not be killed...

I enjoyed this cartoon for the originality of it and for some of the jokes, which, despite being very slapsticky, were quite humorous. I enjoyed the new character of Sylvester, whom I prefer to his character with Tweety, of which he is more famous for.

I recommend this to people who like Sylvester and Porky and who like/don't mind to see cartoon horror. Enjoy "Scaredy Cat"! :-)


The scene where Sylvester is lying unconscious on his bed in the kitchen, and was lowered through a trap door from 1:10 am to 4:00 am is probably the most frightening scene I never watched on a cartoon. They never show what happened to Sylvester, but when he returns, he's changed physically and looks completely traumatized (his fur is white and looks aged, he's not shivering anymore, and his eyes are dilated and with a lost look). Not showing what's in the basement urges you to try to figure it, and you'll probably end realizing the horrors Sylvester witnessed are beyond your imagination. That kind of involvement of the audience is, in my humble opinion, the most elegant form of horror to me!


While the only downside in this cartoon is that Sylvester didn't speak, this is still an classic by the late Chuck Jones. Porky and Sylvester arrive an an run down house (the last that the real estate agent had,) right away the cat gets scared by an bat. Porky loves the house and decides to turn in while Sylvester sleeps in the kitchen. That's where the fun really starts. He gets scared by every little thing and runs to Porky who is trying to sleep. In one scene they're outside and Porky asked Sylvester to closed the window which launches the bed back to the house which was an good gag. Eventually, Porky is fed up with Sylvester and checks it out for himself. The pig gets tied up and gagged and Sylvester runs away. Then his angel arrived and convinces him to remove the mice. Which he did expect 1 who drops an bowling ball on Sylvester's head. Like I said, the downside is that Sylvester is silent but it's still an classic by Chuck Jones. I highly recommend it and its squeal Claws for Alarm. Final Score: an 9 out of 10.


In the first Sylvester/Porky pairing, they move into an abandoned house, which Sylvester discovers is inhabited by killer mice. Every time that he saves Porky from getting murdered, the clueless Porky thinks that Sylvester is the crazy one. Sylvester just never seems to have any luck! One thing that I wondered was whether or not the apparently evil rodents are supposed to be Hubie and Bertie (or their relatives); they looked pretty similar. If you've seen enough Looney Tunes cartoons, you may recall that Hubie and Bertie are those mice who play all sorts of nasty tricks on Claude the Cat to get him out of the house.

Oh well. Whether they are or not, "Scaredy Cat" is still a great cartoon. "Claws for Alarm" had almost exactly the same plot.


Porky Pig and his loyal cat Sylvester move into a big scary looking house and Sylvester (who doesn't have any dialogue in this 'un) is instantly panicky and afraid. He's sure the house is over-run with homicidal mice, booby traps and ominous shadows. However Porky doesn't appear to be listening and insists Sylvester sleep in the kitchen and not beside him, where he feels more safe.

Sure enough, it's not long before the mice are poking at and prodding Sylvester with sharp objects or launching the poor kitty through windows. Despite repeated attempts, Porky will just not pay attention until he himself is kidnapped.

Now it's up to Sylvester to rescue him in an unusual role as the victim turned hero. You gotta love him, he's just so adorable.


Porky Pig and Sylvester the Cat find themselves in a spooky house where Sylvester sees dastardly mice planning an execution, needless to say Porky doesn't believe him for much of the short.I liked this cartoon, as Slvester is a favorite character of mine and tweety isn't in this at all, I could never really stand that bird so that's another reason I liked this one. Also call me a tad morbid, but when Sylvester nonviolently tried to commit suicide I found myself laughing. This funny cartoon is on Disk 2 of the "Looney Tunes Golden Collection Volume 1"

My Grade: B+


The above question wan posed by an irate woman called "Nell?" Now, that's an odd insult that she used: a sun-baked ham? Well, in an old film, particularly a Three Stooges short that is 68 years old, you're going to get a lot of strange name-calling. I suppose in real life, the boys would be called a lot worse.....a lot worse.

Daisy, Tessie, Flossie and Nell (the old coot who has no patience with the bumbling boys) actually hire the Stooges to take them West so they can perform their singing and dancing act. Of course, five months into the trip they've only made it about 100 miles to Kansas and Nell has lost her patience. Can't blame the poor woman.

The bulk of the story contains classic Three Stooges gags, some of which are good no matter how many times, or in how many films, you seem them: like the grizzly bear wandering into the shed and Curly, at first, thinking it's a warm blanket.

Then, PC-aside, we get the normal adventures with Indians which are usually pretty funny. The highlight, however, of this "western adventure," is the ice-fishing scene..Without giving too much away, suffice to say all three Stooges wind up taking humorous plunges into the icy waters. You can't help but laugh out loud at some of them.


How I remember my earliest memory of this from Christmastime of 1972. also how hysterically I was Laughing @ hearing Curly say "Gimme the Ax, the ax,the ax,right in the neck,the neck,the neck."Then seeing it again for the first time in years some time in 1986.This time that I'd first seen it it was also after school & when it was too snowy out to go to my C.C.D.Class.Curly's Skunkskin cap is another interesting & hysterical aspect to give good color to this picture. I was laughing other than this too when Curly had even said to Larry "This Fish looks like Moe." and then Curly said "It is Moe."You've just got to see the rest of it to understand & enjoy it for yourself also including when they're told by the Indians that they had until sundown to leave.They used the cabin for their scenery for "Uncle Tom's Cabin."The film concludes when they use a part of the stage's scenery for a sail @ the end when the girls are being chased by the Indians & have to hop onto the stage coach with the wind blowing the stagecoach away.Coitainly Stephen "Steve" G. Baer a.k.a."Ste".


I first saw this Three Stooges short when I bought the Three Stooges Collection Vol. 3, and so this is one of the first ones that I watched on the first disc, and I can say a lot of things in this short film's favor! I can say that it is excellent, it is a very funny Three Stooges film that is very filled with hysterical moments and everything that is typical from the Three Stooges! This is one Three Stooges short that I can say that the frontier has never been this funny, except in the world of the Three Stooges, in that world, a lot of very funny and hysterical things can occur! I really love a lot of the Three Stooges shorts that I have seen, with both Curly as the Third Stooge and Shemp as the Third Stooge, I haven't seen Joe Besser as the Third Stooge and I don't intend to, because I heard that he was not funny, he was totally annoying from what I heard. This is another of their best shorts from the early 1940's!

Out of all of the Three Stooges shorts that I have watched and loved in my life, I can say that though there are some shorts that I like better than others, I can not say that I have seen one Three Stooges short that I have hated, I love all of the ones that I have seen, and I believe that is a very good thing that I have! I just do not know where I would be without the Three Stooges, because I would not know about all of those gags and pratfalls that they did!

10/10


Not quite up to most of the other Stooge shorts I've been watching, but I did like and am surprised that nobody commented on Curly's skunk skin cap. Good touch right there.

The ice fishing routine was of course quite good Maybe the high point of the film. The depiction of the Native Americans was of course the typical stereotype;e, but what else would you expect in a Stooges short.

For me personally, the most entertaining feature was the banter between Nell and the Stooges. Like her remark that she'd shoot them if she wasn't running short on bullets and Curly's helpful comment that he has lots of bullets.

All in all, quite enjoyable but not the tip top best for the boys.


The Three Stooges has always been some of the many actors that I have loved. I love just about every one of the shorts that they have made. I love all six of the Stooges (Curly, Shemp, Moe, Larry, Joe, and Curly Joe)! All of the shorts are hilarious and also star many other great actors and actresses which a lot of them was in many of the shorts! In My opinion The Three Stooges is some of the greatest actors ever and is the all time funniest comedy team!

This is funny Three Stooges short with Curly. Dick Curtis and Bert Young have to interesting role here and the two actors play them well. The same goes for Dorothy Comingore, Dorothy Appleby, Lorna Gray, and Kathryn Sheldon! The fishing scenes and the bed scenes with The Stooges are hilarious! Recommended!


I saw this film last night in a advance screening. I can say without a doubt it is the worst movie I've ever seen in the theater. It is simply a terrible movie. For every joke that's funny (which are few) there is about dozen that are not. Then there's all the jokes we've seen in previous Myers films that aren't so funny the 4th time around when they appear in this flick. Many moments in this film will having you looking around the theater wondering if anyone else finds this movie as stupid as you do.

That's really the bottom line. This movie is stupid. Take every fear you've had watching the trailer, times it by 10 and you will get an idea of how bad this film is.

By the way, the hockey in this movie will leave any one who loves the game sick to there stomach. The hockey portrayal left me in tears. Its brutal ! The film is a HUGE slap in the face to hockey. Thanks Mike Myers !

On a positive note though, Justin Timberlake and Stephen Colbert are hilarious. The only time i enjoyed the movie at all was when they were on screen. I never thought in a million years I would leave a movie saying " Thank God Justin Timberlake was is it."

In short : this movie is terrible ! Don't believe me ? Then throw your money away and see for yourself.


It was heavy-handed, painful and endless. The opposite of funny. An excruciating bunch of penis jokes strung together with some gross-out scenes. Wow! Penises can be short! Penises can be long! Oh, hahaha! Oh, and who can forget the musical numbers. Did I mention that they were choreographed? Mike Myers has lost the charm he exhibited in the Austin Powers franchise. And it's clear that he picked an inexperienced director for this so he could control the shoot. And why does Jessica Alba keep doing crappy movies like this and "Good Luck, Chuck"? Did someone tell her she was a comedienne? And Justin Timberlake -- well, no wonder he wears a wig and moustache throughout. Ironically, though the material is definitely for teen-aged boys, they probably won't go to see it because of the title. It'll maybe have one weekend, then go flaccid. Incidentally, the only truly memorable line in the entire mess is from Verne Troyer in an outtake run with the credits. But it's not worth watching the entire mess to hear it.


Mike Myers can't seem to get enough of himself in The Love Guru. He's constantly giggling at his own jokes, and mugging for the camera as if he thinks his latest comedy creation is the funniest thing he's invented. I had a very different reaction. Pitka was born in America, and traveled to India to study under the cross-eyed Guru Tugginmypudah (Ben Kingsley), who taught his students lessons by having them hit each other with urine-soaked mops. Pitka devotes his life and his teachings to helping other people out with their relationship troubles, and hopes his words of wisdom will become so popular, he'll wind up on Oprah.

This is information we learn early on in the film (after Pitka serenades us with a Bollywood-style musical number of Dolly Parton's Nine to Five during the opening credits), and I pretty much knew right there that The Love Guru was going to be a very long 90 minutes. The movie makes a grave miscalculation with its lead character. Guru Pitka is not funny or likable. It's simply Myers talking in a funny accent, and coming up with as many alternate ways for saying "penis" as he can without losing the film's PG-13 rating. Pitka is not even a real character. Myers plays him more as an experiment, as if he's still testing the character out, and we the audience are the guinea pigs being subjected to the experiment. It's been widely reported that the reason why Myers hasn't done a live action film in five years is because he's been fine tuning his Guru Pitka at various comedy clubs until he felt he was ready. He was not ready, and he probably should have spent another five years if the end result is any indication.

Pitka is approached by Jane Bullard (Jessica Alba), the owner of the struggling Toronto Maple Leafs hockey team. Her star player, Darren Roanoke (Romany Malco), hasn't been performing up to the best of his abilities ever since his wife, Prudence (Meagan Good), left him for the goalie on the rival team - a French player named Jacques "Le Coq" Grande (Justin Timberlake, embarrassing himself here) who is known for his over-sized "manhood" as much as he's known for his talent in the game. The character exists simply so that Myers and co-screenwriter Graham Gordy can have the characters say cock a lot more than humanly necessary. The Maple Leafs have a chance at winning the Stanley Cup, but not if Darren doesn't have his head in the game. The team's pint-sized coach (Verne Troyer) doubts that Pitka can turn the situation around, but the Guru is determined to help. He'll do this by finding a way to distract Darren from his problems (By forcing him to watch two elephants having sex, thereby taking his mind off of his problems with his wife. You figure it out.), and help him confront his over-bearing mother (Telma Hopkins), who has long cast a shadow over the star player.

The Love Guru is not a comedy, it is a cry of desperation on behalf of Myers and everyone involved. Comedy is funniest when it seems to come naturally out of the material, but everything seems so forced and strained here. It's almost like if they can't think of something funny to do, they'll throw in elephants humping each other, or light a midget on fire. And if that doesn't work, they'll throw in another couple references to male genitalia. If there's a bigger cry of comic desperation than limp innuendo humor, then it has to be out of the blue musical numbers that are not funny in themselves, the movie just expects us to laugh at the fact that the characters are suddenly singing for no reason. You know, I think I'm going to have to take that last statement back. There's an even more desperate form of comedy, and that would have to be building an entire scene around the fact that Guru Pitka has a different kind of food stuck in his beard each time we see him, building up to a sight gag where his entire beard is cotton candy. This movie has so many scenes of just plain wrong-headed desperation, you'd almost think it was intentional.

While Myers cackles and mugs his face with glee, pretending that he's having a great time, the rest of the cast kind of look like they wish they were somewhere else. Jessica Alba looks uncomfortable, and her scenes where she's supposed to be warming up to Pitka look more like she's hanging out with him out of pity more than anything else. It's not unusual in a comedy to have the supporting players stand in the background so the star can do his thing, but the cast here seem just as confused as I was as to what we were supposed to be watching Myers doing.

There is not a single laugh or moment of inspiration in The Love Guru. It's just a sad, depressing slog through material that's not funny to start with, taken by actors who seem to know it's not funny. It's bad enough when a comedy can't generate any laughs, but it gets even worse when you start feeling sorry for everyone up on the screen. You want to ask them and their agents what they were thinking when they signed up. You want to remind Myers of just how funny he can be, and why this material and character don't suit him. But most of all, you want to be able to somehow turn back time to before you gave the ticket counter your money, walk back out the door, and figure out another way to spend 90 minutes.