I have watched this movie about 3 times in the past 2 years, the first time was while I was in Iraq for my second time. This movie has motivated me to get onto the Internet, come here, register, and post this.

This movie is such an insult to me by the way it depicts the U.S. Army. The ice cold barracks, the fellow soldiers you cannot trust or respect, the unchecked sadistic nature of these soldiers. It's war hating, soldier disrespecting propaganda. It was bad enough without the upside down American flag. Yes, if the state of U.S. Army was actually as it is displayed in this movie, then yes that scene would be fitting, but this is not true.

While active duty in the Army for over 5 years, a junior enlisted to sergeant in the ranks, in the 3rd infantry division, and 2 year+ deployments to central Iraq under my belt I think this movie is a pure crock of you know what. And no, I'm not a right wing bush voting war monger.

Was this movie dramatic enough to hold my interest? Yes. But for this bleak world around a military base to be depicted as truth and honestly is absolute crap. I have never seen so much dreariness anywhere in the U.S. Army. I don't know how to go on with words, I Just want to put the word out there that fictional depictions of life, like portrayed in this movie, do far more harm than good.

Post traumatic stress does exist, it has taken a while for me to stop missing being deployed, I missed the camaraderie, my buddies, and the excitement of deployment life, and no it was not about baby killing and slaughter. The issues that this movie is supposed to represent should be out there, and they are, but this ridiculous portrayal is a disgrace to those who serve, and care, and try to be honorable on a daily basis.


It's hard to judge a film such as this. Its cold and hard, yet can be exhilarating and sarcastic. It can be average, yet it can be visionary. Exploitive? Satirical? Too many questions to consider when one watches this film.

Even after 34 years, this film still speaks volumes about our current culture, which many ideals are ringing true today. The younger generations are out of control due to lack of parental control, junk culture is becoming commonplace, violence is desensitizing the masses, and we all seem to be enjoying the ride on the way down. It's very difficult to find movies which can make such startling commentary, yet hold on to such accusations for an extended period of time. Nowadays, films are focused-grouped to death, conformity is more powerful than artistry, and money is far more important than quality. Kubrick took a huge leap with this film, challenging society to take a hard look at itself. Unfortunately, society wasn't ready for this film, which is why it is revered now more than ever.


A Clockwork Orange is the finest film that has ever been made, in my view. Stanley Kubrick has made so many masterpieces, and is by far the best director that ever graced our world. A Clockwork Orange is simply his finest hour!

The film grabs you and glues you to your seat from start to finish. Malcolm McDowell gives us a shining example of superior acting, and the movie is as perverted as any of Kubrick's masterpieces (and then some!). It contains horrifying violence, extreme emotions, perversity and weirdness at it's very worst. It all boils down to serve you a plethora of thoughts for you to take with you and contemplate, after the film ends.

However, with all the perversity bursting out of this film, you will probably NOT like this film the first time you see it. I know I didn't. Fortunately, I gave it a second chance, and thought: Hey, it was actually not bad at all. After the third time, I was lost for words.

After the fourth time, there was little doubt in my mind, that this was the finest film ever made, and regardless of how many great masterpieces I see, A Clockwork Orange still towers above them. I'm sure you'll agree, if you give it the chance it deserves, although it may require for you to see it more than once.


Stanely Kubrick's "A Clockwork Orange" is one of the first movies that proved that cinema can be the most enlightening and amazing art form around. Movies have always been a true love for me, but it wasn't until this film challenged me that I fell deeply in love. The first viewing left me speechless, unable to describe how weird and terrible I felt. I thought it was the film that left me in this mood, so of course that was the easy target to blame. It was just a bad movie, overrated and stupid and a waste of time. But upon further thought, I realised the film did exactly what it was supposed to. It showed how the world can be a weird and horrible place, and how this young man who goes around torturing people and being a wicked person ultimately doesn't have to pay for what he does. And it's funny too. So this film brilliantly satirises this world, showcasing pure evil and people who ordinarily do not perform such evil are forced to laugh and observe what we all hate to admit is the truth. It's sick, but at the same time brilliant. And when one gets down to the core, you can't really explain it. It just is what it is. It's real. No one really sees it very often, but it is out there and everyone knows. And no one does anything about it. In essence, "A Clockwork Orange" is the ultimate satire, and one of the ultimate film experiences. It's art, it's life, and in a funky way, it's entertaining.


To say that the Alex character from Stanley Kubrick's "A Clockwork Orange" is unlikable is like saying the Manson family was sort of bad. He's not just unlikable; he's despicable, terrifying, sick, twisted, and ultimately a haunting embodiment of all our greatest realistic fears and worries. But Alex does not see himself as a sick person. The key to this is in his voice-over narrative.

Alex does not see himself as a pervert, just as we do not see our own flaws and Ramond Babbitt did not see his own autism. To us, we are all normal, which is a scary thought.

"A Clockwork Orange," which was originally released in 1973 after an appeal for an R rating (that was granted after originally being tagged as an X-rated motion picture), had been banned from Britain for close to thirty years. Most film fans in Europe will tell you that they had seen the movie on grainy bootleg videotapes years ago when they were young and curious.

But for those of us lucky enough to enjoy (or squirm through) "A Clockwork Orange" in its entire odd splendor, it is an experience you are likely to never forget. Its characters, its style, its subject matter, its explicit material--all of it combines to create a marvelous whole that will stay with you long after the credits stop rolling.

Essentially a tale focused on Alex's journeys in jail and his process of being re-submitted to the world after inhumane treatments to cure the evil out of him, "A Clockwork Orange" is indeed as offbeat as its title.

All tales of redemption involve characters that we gradually come to appreciate, or like, or--at the very least--learn to tolerate. Not "A Clockwork Orange." Our narrator remains the same throughout the movie, always an incarnation of everything wrong in today's modern world. He goes through no cleansing process and by the end of the film we like him less than we did at the beginning. That's daring.


A CLOCKWORK ORANGE (1971) ****

Starring: Malcolm McDowell, Patrick Magee, Michael Bates, Warren Clarke, and Adrienne Corri Written and Directed by Stanley Kubrick 137 minutes Rated R (for strong explicit sexual content and rape, perverse nudity, brutal violence, and some language)

By Blake French:

	Stanley Kubrick's "A Clockwork Orange" holds the recent record of being the number one film of all time on my charts. The film is everything that you'll never want to watch. The scenes are disturbing, gut wrenching, mind twisting, and way over the top. In result, "A Clockwork Orange" has the most powerful and overwhelming dramatic impact that I have ever experienced in a mainstream film.

	"A Clockwork Orange" is the story of a young man named Alex DeLarge, who is, by day, a regular student who lives with his parents at home, but, by night, a homicidal rapist/killer with his accomplices who dress up like demented clowns at a bleak freak show. He and his buddies weasel their way into the happy homes housing innocent people by chanting the same deceiving phrase every night: they scream that their friend has been critically wounded in an accident near by--and plead to use their telephone to call for help.

For a few unfortunate souls, this devious trick proves to be successful in nature. One night, however, a woman known as "The Cat Lady," refuses their plead, and calls the police in suspicion. Alex, being both smart and sneaky, somehow manages to break into this perverted woman's home, while his accomplices wait outside. Once indoors, a fight begins. A struggle featuring a sex toy owned by "Cat Lady," one that not only causes panicked arousal, but also is featured as the weapon of her graphic and disturbing murder. Alex quickly flees the scene once the police sirens reach his shaky ears, but when he gets back to his pal's waiting outside, they return their experiences with him by bashing him over the head with a hard object, allowing their jumbled escape, but his certain demise.

After the process of being sent to prison, Alex grows to learn to tell offices and guards what they like to hear. He reads the bible, is never involved with any major fights or complications, and almost volunteers for a new kind of experiment. An experiment so probationary it is still being tested and held under wraps. What it does, though a series of "sessions," is cure a violent individual from his sickness; he will feel terrible pain if involved in any sort of violence after the medicine takes place.

The scenes involving the "cure" of Alex's disturbances are truly emotionally troublesome. They are so explicit and detailed that I myself felt tempted to look away from the screen at points. This is not a film for those who are prone to walk out of movies, those who are easily offended, or especially for those with week stomachs. This is the most grizzly enumerated film I have even screened, but it happens to be one of the most perfect and precise in message. I definitely don't recommend the production to everyone, though.

The soundtrack to "A Clockwork Orange" is one of the most inspirational and spirited ones I have ever heard; right up there with the turns to "The Graduate" (1967). Although the actual music is far from fitting each individual scene, the overall presence is not only worth listening to, but also worth the purchase price.

Here, a young Malcolm McDowell explores the character of a lifetime with vivid imagination and tremendous description. His character fits him very well as an actor. Even though the character is meant to be despised, I couldn't help but to be very convinced and interested in his sick, demented, psychotic mind. Most of this is because of the flawless point of view the film contains, one that both provokes empathy and involvement. It investigates the mind of a killer, rapist, and a confused, somewhat harmless, adolescent--all existing in the same character. This is no doubt the character, and the performance, that inspired a generation.

As well as being a movie of violent and sexual repulsion, Stanley Kubrick's direction to "A Clockwork Orange" also forces us to investigate deep down in ourselves and chew on the idea of us being in the character's shoes. There is a scene in this movie that forces two parents to make a decision of a lifetime. After receiving the treatments he volunteered for, Alex returns to his household only to discover that the only mom and dad he's even known have rented his old room out to some strange college kid, who is said to have been there for them during many hard times--like a real son. His parents must make a choice: to throw their only son, who has suffered for years in turn for making others suffer, out of the house for good, or allow him to return with open arms trusting that he is "cured." Well, dear reader, what would you do? Brought to you by Warner Bros.


Few films are as sensational or infamous as Stanley Kubrick's "A Clockwork Orange". It's impossible to sit through ACO and not have a reaction; whether it be shock, disgust or amazement. The savage tale of a brutal young droog and his subsequent "reformation" by the government is as shocking and thought-provoking as ever.

While the film's depictions of violence and sex are what it's most known for, ACO works on far deeper levels. The disturbing portrayal of youth and its satirical depiction of a government's attempts to create a better society are brilliant, but the most fascinating aspect of ACO is the questions it poses about good and evil. While the crimes Alex commits at the beginning of the film are atrocious, what the government does to him is worse. The film presents the absolute worst aspects of man, but shows that even these are still favorable to a man without the choice. People can denounce the film because of its brutal content, but the importance of the questions it poses can't be denied.

Equally excellent to the film's content is the effort by the crew. Kubrick's perfectionism pays off well, as ACO in one of his most visually striking films. Malcolm MacDowell is nothing short of amazing as Alex. Kubrick's use of surreal imagery and set pieces, as well as the ingenious use of music to compliment the on-screen action, creates a world that perfectly reflects the protagonist's behavior and the government's policies.

A Clockwork Orange is by no means an easy film to get through, as many will be turned off by the scenes of violence and rape. But this masterpiece is far more complex than a simple romp through a world of youthful violence. It's a rare example of film-making that demands that the viewer actually think. Real horrorshow all around, Oh my brothers.


This is just possibly the most "perfect" movie ever made. There is no meaningless dialog; not a single extraneous character; and every plot twist is rational and reasonable. Not to mention a superb soundtrack. Because of the intense violence, particularly against women, it is a disturbing and difficult film to sit through. But if you care about the cinema, you must watch without interruption! Characters get what they deserve...in the beginning and at the climax. Let Kubrick take you on the emotional rollercoaster of your cinematic life. And don't forget to breathe.


i just saw this movie about a day ago, and it completely blew me away, namely the main character, protagonist, hero? Alex. we love, hate, and or just plain utterly confused about how we feel of Alex. Alex is the greatest villain ever because he is ourselves, he is the worst of ourselves. hes the deep dark place inside you that rises to the surface eventually, and then pushed down just as fast because it terrifies you. the way Alex stares into the camera in the first scene just freaks me out, he has a little smirk on his face that seems to say you may hate me, but you'll never be rid of me, because there can never be good without the bad, and i am the bad.


A Clockwork Orange (1971) is by far one of the most entertaining films I have ever seen. The characters are all so interesting that I wish the movie wouldn't end! All the actors do a fantastic job in their roles, especially Malcolm McDowell. The film's soundtrack is also quite great; I recommend that everyone should at least listen to it. The story for A Clockwork Orange goes like this:

Alex (Malcolm McDowell) is a cheerful young man who enjoys rape, violence, classical music, and just about everything sadistic. With his three droogs, Alex spends the nights terrorizing anyone who he might encounter. One night, after killing a woman with numerous cats, Alex's gang turns on him and leaves him at the hands of the law. Alex next finds himself in prison with the sentence of 14 years for his murder that night. While in prison, he hears about a free ticket out of his sentence. All he has to do is be a guinea pig for a scientific experiment. The experiment is supposed to make Alex "better" and revert him from being bad to good. Alex says yes, jumping at the opportunity to get free faster. After being brainwashed by the scientists, Alex returns to civilization as a free and good man. However, the experiment has some side-effects that were not intended, and Alex is left helpless as his past victims come to gain revenge on him.

As I said earlier, the acting (not to mention the soundtrack) is great. With the slew of Hollywood remakes on the rise, I can only hope that they never remake this classic. From the eye-grabbing first shot of the film to the confusing yet fulfilling last shot of the film, A Clockwork Orange remains to be one of my favorite films. Stanley Kubrick remains to this day, even after his death, as one of the best filmmakers of all time. Go and watch this film with an open mind. It truly is a masterpiece. I give A Clockwork Orange (1971) a 10 out of 10.


Stanley Kubrick has a way of telling stories about violence without actually exploiting them, or going into exaggeration. In DR STRANGELOVE, OR HOW I STOPPED WORRYING AND LEARNED TO LOVE THE BOMB violence as war was discussed, overheard, never truly seen until the final reel when a flurry of atomic bombs exploded into bright mushrooms as the song "We'll Meet Again" lovingly played in the background. In 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY Hal-9000 terminates an entire crew in a most chilling way and all we see is a computer screen indicating the termination of life. Now, in A CLOCKWORK ORANGE, Kubrick actually brings a story about violence, and even then it is art directed within an inch of its life.

Alex DeLarge is the leader of a band of 'droogs' who move from location to location terrorizing their victims, putting them under outrageous acts of violence. When two of his 'droogs' refuse to follow Alex's path of destruction, he turns on them and beats them, until an act of reversal turns against Alex and he is brought down by the medical industry who decides to "reform" his heretofore sociopathic tendencies. One he is cured, an interesting chain of humiliating events that bring Alex even farther down ensue: he is, for example, now attacked by his very ex-mates, now policemen, and his ex-victims. Sometimes the cure is far worse than the illness. Karma is a bitch.

Kubrick has a particular way of visualizing his films. A CLOCKWORK ORANGE has a look and feel completely out of its time, closer to sometime in the future, and its torture sequence in which Alex is regenerated also looks straight out of a science fiction movie. However, this is not a science fiction film. It's actually quite difficult to categorize CLOCKWORK because it's something of a social satire, something of a drama, has comedic moments and deconstructs a musical for a horrifying rape sequence; however, its approach to the material gives it the feel of a hybrid out of time, out of place, but visually arresting and impossible to take for granted. It's this approach that makes the work the product of a master of direction -- it can be seen multiple times and every time a different perspective arises, and all one can be left with is with the notion that this is pure, ultra-modern cinema.


With the sudden death of Stanley Kubrick recently a part of my love for film died along with him as I recognized the unfortunate fact that there was no other director alive to closely heed the call for attention to detail and visceral content. The thought of looking to Steven Spielberg for future answers was almost unbearable as I remembered that his originality often gives way to family fare (The Pinnochio finale of `Artificial Intelligence') in an attempt to pad his already overloaded wallet. I thought about Sam Mendes and cringed as I remembered that for him art was a floating grocery bag with unclever teenagers clamoring around it in `American Beauty.' No one could replace Stanley Kubrick and after the intitial tears I bought his boxed set and tried to make the best out of a bad situation. And it was then that I rediscovered his greatest achievement `A Clockwork Orange.'<br /><br />What inspired me to watch `A Clockwork Orange' all those years ago was initially it's `X' rating. I knew that mom would have a fit and I had to see why it was so provocative. For the better part of the 1970's it was also banned furthering my desire to see it. I was surprised by the `X' rating until I witnessed the hilarious in-out rape scenes and was somewhat amazed at the blatancy and sheer delight of the slow-motion pummeling of his droogies by the sweet looking but awfully scary Alex De Large (Malcolm McDowell). Upon further viewing a new love and passion grew for the film until I became part of the passionate cult that remains inspired by `A Clockwork Orange' more than any other films on the AFI Top 100 of all time list.<br /><br />`A Clockwork Orange' was a very sad film for any lawmaker who adores social order and loathes freedom of speech in 1971. The response of lawmakers who banned this critical statement on social order proved their fear by banning it almost immediately though it still managed an Academy Award nomination for Best Picture and Best Director and deservedly so. Ironically, Kubrick's most original piece was a witty and insightful adaptation of the terrific Anthony Burgess novel. I believe that Burgess would have loved what Kubrick did with it. There were subtle changes and Alex ultimately failed to become a do-gooder in the film but it was all for the best. You almost never like the movie more than the novel but this is a film where Kubrick works overtime to bring his imagination to the proceedings and the movie is better than the novel.

With every Kubrick film comes the feeling of eating Turkish food. As a principle Turkish food can be presented with a taste that is somewhat unedible. More importantly is the idea of presentation and the experience requires elegance and an amazing contrast of color. This as opposed to taste makes for quality food. Similarly, Kubrick often shied away from telling a fundamentally coherent plot and concerned himself with the details of visual artistry. `A Clockwork Orange' was his best effort on the silver screen because he was able to finally incorporate a fantastic story with the elegant presentation of color, a task that surely kept him at night as he tossed and turned searching for a perfect balance of the two.

What truly makes this adaptation of the Burgess novel a success, is what Malcolm McDowell brings to the screen. He is Alex De Large and you can't help but kind of adore his urgent needs for a little of the old ultra violence each night as he unexpectedly makes his house calls through the neighborhood and pounces on innocent women. You also can't help but appreciate his interaction with his good old mom and dad as a tiny snicker forms when he insists on not being able to attend school and a sad but sweet look of confusion and sadness innocently appears as his parents introduce him to their replacement son and he finds himself homeless and in need of his droogies. His interactions with his droogies are a delight as he goes from `singing in the rain' to a mad villain beating up the little groupies in slow-motion. There is a sense of sadness as he ironically goes from being Beethoven's number one fan to a botched suicide that leaves him with broken limbs abounding but the same clever smile and good attitude. The finale is quite possibly the best ever in cinema as sweet Alex cannot help but think of a little of the old in-out as the nurses attempt to curtail his ultra violent tendencies. The slow smile that appears on his innocently despicable face is a sheer delight. The incredible accent makes it all the better.

`A Clockwork Orange' was a film that was so far ahead of it's time in 1971. The Kordova Milk Bar was a trendy little place we can only picture existing in the future. The fascinating way that his crime was dealt with could be the wave of the future should the capital punishment issue cause too much disagreement. In short, a little of the old ultra violence is what propelled this film to high rankings and what will eventually allow all of us to allow our children to see it, once their 18 of course.

10/10


"A Clockwork Orange" starts out with Alex and his gang of "droogs" sitting in the Kerova milk bar drinking the milk plus... Then the camera starts slowly to move back and we see naked female statues and drink machines which purl out the milk through their breasts...

McDowell is splendid as the star-child Alex... He is simply a vicious and amazing sadist monster, lethal in his sincerity, taking delight in rape and violence... Never such a vile character has been so charismatic and attractive...

His life is perplexing, questionable and terrifying... He doesn't show the slightest regard for other's rights or morality... He doesn't even regard his victims as human beings...

His paradoxical character is in nearly every scene... McDowell captures Alex's human and inhuman side with equal skill... Alex is a victim at the mercy of an uncaring society, condemned to the physically unbearable "dislike therapy" and preyed upon by his former targets...

Set in England in the near future a future which vaguely reflects our own, but it seems that society has started to crumble and at night the streets are driven with teenage gangs who run free of parental control...

"A Clockwork Orange" is too strong for some people to accept and is still too powerful today... It is an extremely disturbing meditation on the violent nature of man... Kubrick emphasizes the human element by paradoxically dehumanizing the characters...

Viewers see images they may not have wanted to see, but will never be able to forget... He presents violence in a confusing and increasing fashion that makes it alarmingly attractive... He invites us to join Alex in raping and pillaging into London urban jungle to show that violence and power are invariably attractive... He makes good use of the camera, showing, in strange ways, the furious underworld of Alex...

Kubrick is the driving force behind "A Clockwork Orange." The film is without exception his picture... He took the novel of Anthony Burgess re-shaping it to fit his own vision... Images and sound pull in different directions, stimulating conflicting emotions...

In a bizarre juxtaposition of often classical music with violence, we see ourselves manipulated into cheering for Alex, despite his brutal and amoral nature... We are forced to really think about the implications of the events with no answer...

The film serves as a battleground for philosophical arguments making comments without forcing an opinion instead preferring that we ourselves decide what to make of the satire... Exposing themes to think about, significant prediction, liberalism of society, sexual acts gaining acceptance, violent films in higher degree, alcohol-currently legal, accounts for many acts of violence, crime out of control, violence in schools, television, illustrating the inconstant nature of public opinion, raising questions, themes and ideas that many people would prefer not to confront...

Style has always been one of Kubrick's strong points... He maintained a reputation for an obsessive attention to detail... He was known for getting the most out of his actors... Distinct images often play a significant part in his films...

With its dynamic bizarre sets and pulsating classical music score, and with a word of warning on how bad violence is and should be watched very closely, Kubrick's motion picture is unsurpassed with intellectual content... It is a film described often as the sociological masterpiece of the decade and, often as dangerously vicious a film with more violent sex and dangerous thugs than any other I can remember, a film which daringly brought to larger-than-life those areas of the unconscious mind which some people felt were best left hidden

It is also highly dramatic, extremely graphic, compelling and provoking... It is frightening and intriguing masterpiece with a powerful message about the reality of human nature...


It's funny, after you watch a film many times you begin to fall in love with it. This is true with a lot of films but for Clockwork Orange, I only had to watch it 2 subsequent times to fall in love with it. There are so many elements of this film that bring it together and make you totally enjoy the story. The music in the film is one such example, at times it's beautiful and at times dark and disturbing, setting the right tone for the scene. Technically this is a sci-fi film because it does take place in the future and there is the plot which involves brainwashing. When many people think of Stanley Kubrick, they think of 2001 and this film. It's because this film stands out as possibly the scariest image of the near future


I haven't read the novel that this film is based upon, and I didn't know that much about it before I sat down to see it. I decided to see it after hearing pretty much nothing but praise for the film(in fact, the only negative comments I've ever heard about it is that it deviates too much from the original novel... which is something Kubrick was famous for) and because I immensely enjoyed The Shining and Kubrick's directorial style as seen in it. I must say, it's been quite a while since I saw something so full, spectacular, exhausting and powerful. From the very first frame to the very last... amazing. Kubrick's style is magnificent, his storytelling is among the best ever seen in cinema. With this film he truly captures the raw and pure qualities of violence. I don't think(well, I certainly don't hope) that anyone who ever has or ever will see this film confuses this as an ode or a tribute to violence... this is not, in any way, shape, or form glorifying violence or violent behavior. Quite the contrary, you might say. The film proves, once and for all, that violence spawns violence. Visually, the film is absolutely stunning. The angles, pans, tracking shots... fantastic work. The ideas presented in the film are more than enough to disturb and freak out any normal person... which is(at least part of) the point. If I mention the words 'eyes opened forcefully' you probably already know what I'm talking about, right? That famous sequence has been referenced, spoofed and talked about more times than just about any other visual impression in the history of cinema. The way everyone and everything turns at Alex after he's apparently cured... truly disturbing. I found a surprise at every change in scenery or even in immediate situation, especially in the latter part of the movie. The way society turns against Alex after he rejoins it, apparently a better man... one of the most 'true' and real cinematic truths ever told of humanity. We are beasts, we are what is commonly referred to as 'inhumane'... and Kubrick tells us this in a truly astonishing manner. The plot is very good. It deals with the main character of Alex, beautifully played by Malcolm McDowell, who loves 'a bit of the old ultra-violence'. He is incarcerated and offered a chance to be re-entered to society, after being 'cured' of his psychotic tendencies. The pacing is... well, hard to describe, really... it feels slow, the movie seems to move slowly... but it hardly drags at all. It's exhausting, not to mention hard to sit through, both due to the extreme content and the slowly moving plot, but it's all worth it. The point is pure genius. Pure Kubrick. The acting is flawless... and believe me, that is not a term I use lightly. Every single actor performs perfectly. The characters are perfectly written, credible in every scene and interesting. The cinematography is pure beauty... pure excellence. I've come to love Kubrick's visual style. His cuts of varying speed and intensity, his long takes when dealing with dialog... truly amazing. His use of music is astounding... the use of classical music is great and really adds to the ironic tone and the atmosphere, the mood of the film. This is truly a work of art, and an exhausting but truly worthwhile film. I haven't seen anything quite like it for a while... in fact, maybe I never have. I recommend this to any fan of Kubrick or intelligent theater. If you believe yourself to be perceptive and intelligent enough to understand the film on most or all of its levels(I don't claim to, not at all), or even on the most basic levels, such as theme and morale(which is what I understood of it) then you should, nay, then you *need* to see this film. Be prepared, though, it does contain quite a lot of disturbing themes and ideas, and is not in any way for the faint of heart. 10/10


Without a doubt, my absolute favorite film of all time. I first saw this movie three years ago and I have been in love with it (and Stanley Kubrick) ever since. I never get tired of seeing this movie. Why it remains so underappreciated (at least by "casual" movie viewers) is beyond me. Everything is great; acting, direction, cinematography, the sets, everything.

Something that I don't think anyone else commented on was the Russian motif. The names of the droogs (Alexander, George, Peter, and Dim...short for Dimitri) are decidedly Russian. The singer referenced in the record store, Johnny Zhivago, has obvious Russian overtones. The statement made by the Minister of the Interior about the "peace-loving citizens" is a direct reference to the name that Soviet government representatives applied to their people when talking about the Cold War. Red seems to stand out from other colors. And, of course, who could forget Nadsat, the Russian slang language? I wonder what Burgess and Kubrick were trying to suggest about the future of Ingsoc (those familiar with "1984" will understand)?


Clockwork Orange is definitely the most bizarre film I've ever seen. The whole idea of brainwashing a criminal to never do harm again in itself is genius. Stanley Kubrick amazes me with just the music he picked for the movie alone. I was hooked from the opening scene! But, I did find the movie rather disturbing at some points, with the violence and rapes. But the story just made me look past it, and concentrate on the movie. In my opinion, its one of the most brilliant pictures ever made. But, you really have to look past the things you might find disturbing, and just concentrate on the story.


Kubrick's's best film ever.absolutely mind-blowing.quite disturbing though but that's what moves us.he has amazingly blended the disturbing scenes with the lovely music of Beethoven.a riveting journey of a vicious young hoodlum in modern England who is caught due to the betrayal of his friends and his journey through aversion therapy that drives him to try and do himself in and his cure at last.i never thought i would understand and really appreciate this film but i did and i say that it is one of the best films of the century.Kubrick has excelled himself and i truly feel it is his best film ever.it also has an absolutely mind-blowing performance by young Malcolm Mcdowell as Alex,the best acting performance i have seen.


My first experience of watching this movie was inexplicable. Never before I felt such high adrenaline rush for watching a movie. A Clockwork Orange is full of messages and takes an extremely critical stand to society. It shows how the so called 'normal' elements in society are far more weirder and hypocrite than ruffians like the central character -- Alex. Notice how Alex appears more human, more balanced in comparison to his parent's paying guest, a supposedly 'normal' person? How Alex's parents disown him after he returns home from a correctional center?

Also when Alex is taking his final exam to leave the correctional center you can notice that Kubrick is questioning society's parameters of right and wrong. To pass the test and be considered 'sane' Alex must reject the most primitive needs of humans, like avoiding physical contact with an extremely attractive lady and avoid self defense, no matter how badly he is getting beaten. In this scene Kubrick was exposing society's distorted views on righteousness. Why is consensual sex always immoral? Is self defense a crime? Also, notice how the correctional center staff is enjoying to watch Alex being humiliated. This suggests that in reality 'normal' people are just as immoral and wrong as open criminals like Alex and his gang. The only difference being an average person is a closeted immoral, while Alex does his dirty job in the open.

One particular thing which took me by surprise in A Clockwork Orange was the absence of loyalty within Alex's gang. Normally, gang members are shown as being ruthless to strangers, but they behave with utmost trust and loyalty within the gang. Here Kubrick shows them as completely insane minds with no rules or morals.

A Clockwork Orange also shows the government's role to come in the rescue of outcast youngsters and bring them back into mainstream society. The final scenes where the minister privately assists Alex is an indication of that.

Every actor does a splendid job, but Malcom MCDowell as Alex, stands out. The scene of violence where he leads the beating of a homeless man is alone worth the piece of admission.

This is one movie not to be missed. Its both very moving and also extremely entertaining. And it has repeat value as it requires multiple viewings to absorb its tail and enjoy it to the fullest.

Kudos to Kubrick's genius for making such a unique piece.


If you don't try to read too much meaning into some of the scenes in this film, you might find that it contains more truth about a 21st century society than anyone cares to admit. I saw this movie on it's original release and thought that it was just an exciting and hilarious ground breaking film ( I believe it had an X rating for a while ), and after seeing it again on DVD - I think it's a masterpiece.


Do you know what was Mr. Kubrick's big problem? He just couldn't make a crap movie. He is the only filmmaker who's films had such a quality. So if in my opinion he's a master filmmaker and one of his best films (if not THE best, it is hard to say) is ACO I think a 10 is what this movie should have. And next time you all see this movie don't take it TOO seriously, just try to relax and enjoy it passing by all the possible meanings this movie could have. After all if Kubrick wanted us to know what it is all about we would know!


Oh my god. I have never seen any movie this good. I think it is one of the best movies out there. I don't care what the religious people say about the rape and violence, this movie was just great. The acting superb. Rent or buy this movie You will love it.


I really enjoyed this movie. The film has this touching relationship between Heather Graham's character and the young man obsessed with capturing her in photos. At first, I was afraid it was borderline stalking, and I kept on waiting for something bad to happen to the young man. Gradually, the boy's photos reveals something deep and personal about Heather Graham's character. When they do finally meet, the outcome is surprising. All the actors put in good performances, especially Heather Graham. If you like character driven movies, then this movie will appeal to you. I also like the pacing of the film. It's slow and methodical. Often films rush through their stories, but this one takes its time.


Though there have been many films of late that address the issues of the isolation of the individual in a society increasingly settling for homogeneity, few have the honesty and simplicity of presentation as Alfredo De Villa's ADRIFT IN MANHATTAN. Perhaps the reason this film works so well is that instead of dealing with the usual tropes, De Villa restricts his story to three individuals who are suffering isolation in the noise and autonomy of New York City and are thus 'adrift' in a life that seems flat and without a beacon of hope. The story De Villa weaves is one of interaction of these characters by almost serendipitous incidents, moments that change their lives - at least for a while.

Teenager Simon Colon (Victor Rasuk) lives with his overbearing mother Marta (Marlene Forte) and gets through his life almost without speaking, working in a camera shop, spending his idle hours photographing people in the park. Tommaso Pensara (Dominic Chianese) is an elderly painter and music lover who lives alone and supports himself by being the 'mail boy' in a large firm: his loneliness is heightened when he discovers he has macular degeneration and will go blind. The physician who makes his diagnosis is Dr. Rose Phipps (Heather Graham) who is grieving from the recent death of her 2-year old child and is unable to continue her marriage to literature professor Mark Phipps (William Baldwin).

The threads of coincidence begin to tie these people together when Simon begins to photograph Rose in a manner that resembles stalking, when Tommaso notices and desires and older lady at his workplace, Isabel Parades (Elizabeth Peña) and is encouraged by Dr Rose to share his potential blindness with this friend, and when Rose explores the attention Simon bestows on her, filling an emotional need for both parties. Naturally the development of these intersections is more complex but at the same time the manner in which they develop is very tender and gentle.

Some viewers may find the film meandering a bit too much: this is not linear storytelling but rather shifts in incidents and moods and gradual changes that occur among these simple but needy people, much like the coincidences and random kindnesses occur to the sensitive eye. The cast is very fine and the cinematography and musical score sustain the mood of the piece. This film requires involvement on the part of the viewer, and that involvement has its rewards. Grady Harp


I enjoyed the movie. Didn't expect a lot and was pleasantly surprised by the storyline, the characters and the development. It is one of the movies that doesn't give enough information about the characters (on purpose) so that it leaves you with questions and wanting more. The inter relation between the characters is extremely light so that normally annoying feature actually added to this film.

Some of the features of the movie are a little disturbing but I wouldn't consider them weird enough to prevent most people from enjoying the movie.

For me a 7 means I enjoyed it and would definitely watch it again. I just wouldn't be thrilled to have paid $10 to see it.


I recently had the distinct pleasure of seeing Adrift in Manhattan at the HBO Latino Film Festival in New York. The film made me laugh, almost brought me to tears and definitely kept me on the edge of my seat. The character development is unbelievable in this film. Heather Graham, William Baldwin, Dominic Chianese and Victor Rasuk (who I have loved ever since Raising Victor Vargas) all give multi-dimensional performances. Victor's character drew me in; Heather's character kept me guessing. You could tell there was something wrong by the distant/ unhappy look in her eyes. William Baldwin was extremely convincing as a husband trying to reclaim his life. Most impressive of all was Dominic's performance. It truly almost brought me to tears. Oh, this movie also has a VERY STEAMY SEX SCENE!


I loved this movie. The feeling and pace was graceful, the cinematography and music wonderful. There's loneliness and loss here, but it's covered in a way that makes you just fall in love with the characters and care for them, hope they come through. For those that can identify with the vib of New York, the film is likely to be appreciated even more, as elements of the subway and streets come through realistically.

This movie visits the lives of three different people, and how they coincidentally intermingle within the movie time line. The other characters in the movie add some color and background, and do well also.

I've watched this movie multiple times and every time I come away satisfied, and more so: inspired. You can use this movie to better your life, to better your art. Strongly recommend watching it on a quiet, relaxing night.


This movie is a pleasant surprise that returns faith in American movie, the faith that has been suffering for a long while, recovering just rarely by Tim Burton's work or movies like "Eternal Sunshine..."

We  especially us who live outside USA  have been exposed to so much Hollywood vain, shallow, plastic movies in range from superhero action violence and funless teen comedies to the worst movie blasphemies - remakes, that we use to forget that there are small movies untouched by Hollywood lethal sauce. Even masterpieces like Big Fish, Edward Scissorhand, Chocolate, Green Mile (or already mentioned Eternal Sunshine of Spotless Mind) have a clear Hollywood sign, and after all those Rambos and American Pies, comics based blockbusters and remakes of French movies (what is additionally ironic because average American movie consumer would rather see a rattlesnake on the floor than French movie on the screen) this touch of Hollywood became odious, what is a tragic decline for this old temple of movies... just few decades ago the touch of Hollywood style was the best praise a movie could be given.

Adrift in Manhattan is more European style than any American movie I've seen for a long while; even more, it is more European style than many European movies made in last two decades. Too many European movie makers make movies to fit into Hollywood standards, hoping it will sell better; now, American authors teach Europe a lesson how good a movie can exist without Hollywood sugar, false glamour and forced tears.

The basic thing that connects main characters in the movie is loneliness. Though set on Manhattan we don't get the feeling that the big city is the prime suspect for their loneliness, they would probably be lonely everywhere on Earth. Not only that, but somehow New York eases their pain and helps them find each other, find them the way to tomorrow. And this is one of those things that are so often in Europe, a kind of love stories between director and his city, an ode and praise to it, something that American authors so rarely give us.

The second feeling mutual to the characters (besides loneliness) is guilt. They all carry a burden of old mistakes on their conscience  even if they aren't really guilty (from our point of view). And their loneliness grows not only because this burden presses them too hard, not only because they are ashamed, but mostly because they are afraid to share it with anybody. And only learning to open their souls to another person  whoever it may be, the more unknown stranger the easier it can be done  can give them hope, a chance for redemption and leaving this guilt behind them. Sharing a burden reduces the pressure. And as we follow these people, we will see how some relations terminate because of total loss of communication, while others appear and develop once the shell softens.

There are no breathtaking performances in the movie, but all the actors made a good job. Personally, I find Dominic Chianese a bit above the others, but it was a most interesting character so the role offered more chances, more challenges. The unobtrusive music was well aligned to beautiful photography, camera loved both the actors and the city.

This movie gave us a picture of some other New York than we usually see, and a completely different picture of American movies than we are used to watch.


**SPOILERS*** Originally called "1/9" or the NYC Seventh Avenue subway line that runs the length of Manhattan Island and ends at the tip of The Battery "Adrift in Manhattan" connects three lonely people who live along its route.

20 year old camera store worker Simon Colon, Victor Rasuk, is obsessed in photographing people on the streets, as well as subways, of New York. One day Simon comes across this lady sitting in the park and becomes infatuated with her multi-colored, or rainbow, scarf.The lady in question Rose Phipps, Heather Graham, becomes very agitated, and even frightened, when Simon mails a number of photos he took of her at her brownstone.

We never quite get what Simon's reasons for mailing his secretly taken photos of Rose were but it almost gets him fired from his job. Instead Rose soon becomes almost as infatuated with Simon as he's with her to the point of inviting him into her home and, to Simon's utter surprise and delight, forces him, a virgin, to make love to her!

Like Simon we soon find out that Rose is not all there, emotionally, in that she's estranged from his husband high school teacher Mark, William Baldwin, and is suffering from a deep depression in the tragic loss of her and Mark's two year-old son Casey, Leim De Villa. Rose's sexual relationship with Simon soon starts to effect her work as an eye doctor in her treating a patient of her's the refined elderly and cultured gentleman Tommaso Pensara, Dominic Chianese.

Tommaso is slowly losing his sight and in him loving to paint that's as well has him receiving a slow and painful death sentence. Tommaso is also in danger of losing his job in the mail room in that he can't see the letters and packages in order to correctly distribute them. It's Tommaso's co-worker Isabel Parades, Elizabeth Pena, who not only takes the time to help him out at his job but cover up all his mistakes. Isabel also falls in love with the some 75 year old bachelor who for the first time in years feel that he's wanted for himself not his talents; in his music and his art.

All three main characters, Rose Simon and Tommaso, in the movie interconnect with each other due to their proximity to the 1/9 subway line. And it's that very reason that makes their lonely and desperate lives, who are aimlessly adrift in Manhattan, that much more worth living!


Adrift in Manhattan is a small, lovingly made, melancholy film about the intersecting lives of various emotionally wounded people in Manhattan. As I watched the film though, I felt something was "off." Then I realized it, the Manhattan in this movie is much too quiet. I lived in Manhattan for years and one of my overriding memories of it is the constant noise; sirens, garbage trucks, horns honking, boom boxes, crazy people yelling, etc. Yet, in this film Manhattan is a quiet, dignified place. If only! I wonder what the film would have been like if it actually had the background noise that's so much a part of the city. I think it would have improved the film and made the characters' loneliness all the more poignant.


"Adrift in Manhattan" tells three intertwining tales of life along Manhattan's 1 subway line. (The film was originally called "1/9," but was probably changed due to the 9 recently being discontinued.) The first concerns an optometrist (Heather Graham) haunted by the death of her child and no longer able to make a connection to anyone, including her estranged husband (William Baldwin). The second deals with a teenager (Victor Rasuk) with a disturbing home life who can only relate to the world through a camera lens. The third deals with an elderly painter (Dominic Chianese, best known for playing Uncle Junior on "The Sopranos") rapidly losing his eyesight as he discovers love with a younger woman (Elizabeth Pena).

I don't give this film a 10 rating lightly...I don't gratuitously hand out the highest ratings to films. But I loved this movie, and I love movies like this: character-driven dramas with solid plots in which the featured players take interesting, unexpected paths. "Adrift in Manhattan" is filled with great characters who could each be the single focus of a film. It's to the credit of director Alfredo de Villa that he manages to fit them all within the confines of this roughly 90 minute movie in such a satisfying manner.

The acting is excellent. Heather Graham gives a carefully nuanced performance that should serve to remind people she can be a great actress when working with solid material and a skilled director. William Baldwin is a revelation. Here you realize the magnitude of his potential, and how he is not "just one of the Baldwin brothers." Victor Rasuk manages to be both creepy and sympathetic, and it's a credit to his talent that you wind up rooting for him more than anyone else. Dominic Chianese gives a heartbreaking performance, and proves to be an actor of great depth. Anyone expecting to see traces of Uncle Junior will be surprised. It makes one hope he stays with us a long, long time so that we can see the full realization of his talents now that the spotlight is on him and he's better able to get good roles like this. I could go on and on about the stand-out performance by Elizabeth Pena, but time is limited.

There's a raw, leave-nothing-to-the-imagination sex scene between Graham and a certain character (trying not to divulge any serious spoilers here) that is not only surprising (given how, when Graham shot it, there were very high hopes for her ABC sitcom and for her becoming a network prime time queen), but cathartic and wholly satisfying in terms of character arc. It is shocking and unexpected when it comes, but makes perfect sense when you realize the film has been building up to it.

Best of all about "Adrift in Manhattan," de Villa effortlessly presents a New York City vibrant in all of its diverse glory, not only in terms of race, but age, class, mental stability, aspirations, and broken dreams...the way the city truly is. This isn't the fake, lifeless, Midwest fantasy New York you find in "Friends," "Sex and the City," "The Devil Wears Prada," and most sitcoms and movies of the last several years. This is the real New York as presented through the gaze of narrative film.

Travel along the 1 train in Manhattan and you'll find a million stories, with each one leading to a million others. (A real life, non-virtual MySpace network.) De Villa and co-writer Nat Moss take three interconnecting ones, and the result is an amazing film that not only provides an ideal showcase for the actors involved, but also serves notice to the film-making community that a talented director has arrived. Let's hope some studio or mini-major pays attention.


The director's deftness in quietus and deep story telling was truly moving in this movie. I believed and was heart felt by all the character's love connections and especially the beautiful love story between older couple Tommaso and Isabel really killed me... The Oeudipal relationship the son has wih his mother was totally believable as well.

It is a NY movie and thank god for it. That kind of intersecting of lives with a voyeurisitc view. In the Big City that never stops. To love, to die, to suffer, to think, to live. I am now totally obsessed with this Mexican American director Alfredo de Villa and look forward to this next movie. Just saw his other Sundnace movie Washington Heights and again the torn artist should was caputured beautifully and more importantly- wamrly. Vivre la indie film and excellent job!


I know what this movie wanted to be. It wanted to be an ensemble movie of people facing traumatic cornerstones in their lives and overcoming, with the usual connection of characters such as movies likes Crash, 20 Bucks or Short Cuts. A noble gesture and not exactly original but OK. However , the fact of the matter is that besides being slow , this movie did what so many other movies seem they feel they have to do... Go right to seediness. A movie that is supposed to be inspirational, challenging , interacting and about making new friends turns into a flick about glorifying mentally warped individuals. By that I mean the glorification of a stalker. Not only was the stalker glorified but rewarded by cheap role sex as well. From an Oedipus complex stricken young man to an eye specialist , beautiful lady that just lost a toddler to an older, underachieving mail clerk losing his eye sight we have the proponents of a could be good movie. With a supporting cast of a vastly younger coworker, in love with older man and the separated husband of the eye specialist, trying to work things out after tragedy. I rambled enough, just thought the movie had great potential but it failed to deliver.


I often get annoyed at movies like this, where you get too many character threads interweaving. These types of films tend to spend too little time on the characters, and thus have to rely on superficial plot twists and clichéd conflicts. I put Crash and Babel in these categories. Both enjoyable enough films, but they fail at their core because they focus too much on the events that the characters face, rather than their response to them.

Enter "Adrift in Manhattan." The ambition here is less than a Crash or Babel -- it's not trying to explain the modern angst of society or draw global interconnectedness links -- but rather to simply explore the lives of a small group of characters in a one city whose lives happen to intersect. As a result, we get to really know them, see what's driving them (shockingly, through their acting and the filming, and not uninteresting plot twists -- most of the intense events that drive them all took place prior to the film), and then watch how it unfolds. There are no neat plot resolutions. Rather, the characters are left with their lives, but hopefully with a more evolved sense of where they fit in it, and how to take control of it. For me, this is great storytelling and a perfect kind of character-based film.

In addition, nearly all of the performances are exceptional. Heather Graham seems to have pushed herself in a completely different direction from her typical fare. Anyone who thought she was just fit for light-hearted role (and I include myself in that group) is in for a remarkable surprise. Her character is grieving heavily, but Graham never overdoes it. Instead, she lets the grief speak for itself, and the result is undeniably moving. Ditto for a handful of moments that are truly hysterical. It's a revelation to see her play a comedic moment in a drama without laying it on. Similarly Victor Rasuk is exceptional, particularly given the dearth of actual lines he has. His eyes, his posture, and his hesitancy give his character the depth that it needs. He's a completely different character from the one we saw in Raising Victor Vargas. Withdrawn, shy, insecure... and yet, his camera convincingly and effectively draws him out of that. And perhaps the sweetest storyline is that of Dominic Chianese and Elizabeth Pena, whose tentative romance is one of the most tender I've ever seen on film.

This movie is an honest 10. Everything in it is earned. The script is very strong, and not overpowering or contrived at any point. The cinematography is beautiful, and really catches the flavor of a real and gritty Manhattan. And finally the direction is superb. Given the tightness of the script, the movie has to rely on shooting to really show us the characters and what they are feeling. And it does so exceptionally. I recommend it unequivocally to anyone who enjoys a very well crafted character-based drama.


I kinda liked the plot of the movie, but what makes the movie so awful is the characters. The new girl that played Paige was more dressy and preppy, and Julia she was more down to earth laid back kind of girl. I'm so disappointed in the movie. All expect for Prince Edward were all different characters. If your going to make a sequel to a movie at least have the same people or don't make a sequel at all. There are just to many movies that don't have the same characters as the first movie. I was so excited when I heard that the movie was coming out. The poster that they have for the movie looked like Julia and on the cover of the DVD. I'm sorry I wouldn't buy this movie.


Dear me, I think I was not very happy when I saw this sequel! What can I say kindly? Although the movie was funny, slapstick, and lighthearted, it felt like it lacked much depth of feeling and lacked the more timeless quality of the careful acting and writing and siting of the first version. It was too hurried, and unrealistic; a number of the characters were "plastic" and lacked depth in their development. It's as if someone took the characters in the first movie and put them on a faster time machine, with all that fast talk. It just didn't seem real.

The ultimate anguished moment for me was that the end was too hurried in parts it should not have been, crazy and simply not believable - especially the muted, smiling "parents" - who lacked the depth of the original parents - the kind you can really relate to, not the wax-faced figures that seemed to "appear". The characters were not developed well, although the father in this movie did seem to be a very good actor in his expression of words.

How did the plot evolve? The depth of the characters (except for Luke), clarity of the scenes and plot and the acting was all off-key to me. I apologize for having to be negative, as I like to encourage, but it was just so disappointing! Upon reflection, I think I was shocked and made quite angry to find most of the original cast gone, so great to the first movie. When the original actors are not reused - the immediate thing that happens in my mind is comparing and trying to figure out if this character is really supposed to be the one I saw before - and realizing how different they are, and not in a good way....which takes away from the movie and its plot. I think it must be a reflexive action to do so, and had the original actors been used, it might have had a small chance...

I kept wanting to see the real Soren (although his replacement was good - but too hurried)- what a great character and actor the original Soren is! as well as Julia Stiles and her parents and brothers and his real mother, the Queen (she played it so beautifully, timing was there in her words and actions, as were all the actors in the original cast) and where was the Prince's sweet sister????? It was so sadly not there.....they were so great together in the original movie, so well written and so in-depth with serious issues and real love....you could feel the chemistry betwenn all the actors in the first one.

Had this second movie been done on its own and not as a sequel, it would have happily landed on its feet as a funny farce. But it went into the mud with the Norwegian "Princess", in my book! What happened? Is there any way, any way at all to redo the movie with the original writers, staff, actors, etc? It needs to be done - I would really like to see this plot modified and redone - a really well-done, in-depth romance! Thank you for listening!


This is THE most horrible movie I have ever seen. I know, I know, I probably have better chances at spotting obvious locational goofs, but seriously. THAT IS A CZECH FLAG IN THE BEGINNING ON THE ROYAL BUILDING (or whatever it was)! But come on people! 4/10 ?! I'm disgusted. The plot is so thin it's crazy. Not to mention the acting! But seriously, the research done before this film is hilarious. Denmark is presented as a kind of royal dictatorship. At some point, and ancient law is brought out from our ancient royal library. Actually, it's 5000 years old.....Becaaaause, we even had writing, laws, let alone a king at the time?! I could go on and on about this nauseating piece of.....argh!! damn that swear filter! Seriously, though, if you REALLY want a shocking movie experience, watch one of the pirated Chinese DVDs with "Engrish" subtitles. That'll render you utterly incapable of understanding what this movie is about.

Have a nice day and do NOT watch this unless you really like bad movies.


I only half-heartedly hoped that this straight to DVD sequel might have some redeeming quality that most of its ilk do not. It was just as I expected it to be - trite and predictable all the way through, with absolutely NO redeeming qualities whatsoever but for the Hollywood happy ending, for those that must have one (and even that was barely tolerable).

The only actor from the original film that returned to the sequel was Luke Mably, continuing his role as Prince Edvard. (Perhaps that should have given him some indication that making this film wasn't a good idea.) If he is the only reason you want to watch the movie, it's not worth it. Everything I liked about the original was ruined in this sequel, right down to the abysmal dialogue, acting, and plot. None of the new actors seemed to fit into the characterizations created by their predecessors. This made all of them feel stiff, as though they are being forced to express sentiments and traits that are not natural to them. Paige's character had no dimension and none of the endearing qualities that got you to like Julia Stiles originally. Mably has absolutely NO chemistry with the actress playing Paige Morgan and it shows.

Below is a full plot summary. If you do not wish to read the plot and spoilers, please do not read any further.

A greedy, penniless cousin of the royal family who is royalty in Norway finds an old law which reads that if the prince was crowned without a bride, then his bride must be of royal Scandinavian blood or he must abdicate the throne. This noble just happens to have a daughter, Kirstin, who was a playmate of Edvard's when they were younger. She was chubby back then, but surprise! Today she's fit to be a model. Kristin professes to be on Paige and Edvard's side and against her father. Both sides of royalty agree to keep things out of the press, and the royal lawyers do what they can to find a loophole. (Anyone want to guess as to their success?) Meanwhile, Kirstin undermines and humiliates Paige in any way she can, proving that she's out for herself. Edvard can't believe his childhood friend would do such a thing. Paige confronts Kirstin, and then the underhanded cat-fight is on, each trying to humiliate the other as much as possible.

The stress eventually separates Paige and Edvard, and she goes to live in the school dorm until finals are over. Edvard, trying to "do what's right for the people," continues wedding preparations to marry Kirstin instead of Paige. Paige spots a tabloid picture of Eddie in which he isn't smiling as though he loves Kirstin, and then sets out for the school's law library with some friends to try to find the loophole that all the lawyers couldn't find. (Anyone want to bet on her success? Oh, wait, I already mentioned Hollywood happy-ending.) Eddie decides just before the wedding that he can't marry Kirstin. (Who knew?) He finds Paige coming out of the library. She shares the good news. They get Soren to lock Kirstin in her room. (And 'hilarity ensues' as she tries to break her way out and get to the church just in time to make a fool of herself.) Meanwhile, according to a newer law (40 years newer than the one previously discussed), Paige has to read the constitution in Danish in front of the Parliament. She manages it, they marry, Kirstin makes a fool of herself, and it's finally over.

Conspicuously absent in all this: Princess Arabella, Edvard's little sister; not even a mention that she exists. Oh, and why can't Edvard just ask Parliament to update the law? All in all, this movie falls flat on its face in the mud, just like Kirstin did.


I must concur with the previous reviewer the only saving grace in this movie is Luke Mably who once again does a fine job portraying Edvard of Denmark. Kam Heskin who plays Paige Morgan is just plain awful from the Shirley Temple hairstyle, the over the top facial expressions, and the hideous wardrobe. The original film while considered fluff by many at least had some wonderful chemistry between the leads whereas there is zilch between Luke and Kam. The only other character worth mentioning is Zoren and I thought Jonathan Firth did an admirable job. Maryam D'Abo's Queen Rosalind is flat and wooden and King Harald is now bald and sports a beard. Even worse is the couple who portray Paige's parents (look more like her grandparents). I cannot fathom why they chose to turn this sequel into such a screwball comedy.


i just watched this movie last night and i was very very disappointed, what happened to the original cast? this kam heskin actress is no good n this movie,she acts very awkward and seems out of line always,i cant feel inspired. Why are they messing up with this movie it seems this is a very low budget movie. The original cast are all marvelous why are they replaced? The only thing that i will watched this movie is Luke Mably who seems not happy also doing this.Why are they turning this movie into a joke. All the things showed here are all disappointing except for Luke who still perform a great job. I will rate this movie negative.


Absolutely Horrible! Where to start? I wanted to turn off the movie from about 10 minutes in but I keep watching, hoping the movie would get better but it just got worst. All the characters are new actors except Luke Malby. I was really disappointed by the new actors of both Soren, Paige and the Queen. Paige was just too fru fu for the Paige that was introduced during the first one. Soren acted way too serious then tried being the comedic relief. But it just didn't work. And the queen wasn't mean enough when Paige screwed up as she did in the first movie. The acting is bad, the story line is bad and even the handsome prince is ugly. The whole budget seems to be about $100 because the clothes were cheap looking and the hair and makeup was horrible. I absolutely hated the way that they did Paige's hair in the movie. Luke Mably comes across as a whiny snob of a prince that was the complete opposite of the guy everyone liked in the first movie. DO NOT EVEN WASTE TIME PICKING UP THE MOVIE OFF THE SHELF!!!!


Like I said, my friend and I decided to watch The Prince and Me and The Prince and Me 2 back to back to see what they were like. While, the second Prince and Me started off fairly like a sweet movie, it turned from a teen audience into a little girl's fantasy world. Especially more like a typical Disney princess flick that was unbelievable and I couldn't take seriously, even for a little kid.

It takes off where Paige is now in Denmark and is learning the language, the culture, and the perks of being a queen, including the paparazzi stalking her 24-7. She's also studying still to become a doctor. Edvard is working hard as well to become a good king and is doing the best he can to contain a good king image. But when an old childhood royal friend, Kirsten, gets in the way of the relationship believing that it should only be royalty who becomes king and queen... you can take off with the rest of the plot.

The new girl who played Paige was totally unbelievable as a workaholic study bug, and didn't have the same presence and grace as Julia Styles. The guy who played the prince actually looked irritated to play the role again, I think he knew that this film was a mistake. Oh, well, for the little 5 year old girls who love fairy tales, this is the film for them, let's just pray they don't make a third installment, otherwise with all the making out these two do, it'll be a porno.

1/10


I just saw this movie, and as a Dane, I'm offended and disappointed. It was just so... bad! The plot seemed unoriginal, the cast was .. well, disappointing, and what happened to Paige's hair? Movie 1 it was brown and straight, but now it's unnaturally curly and blond? And the actor? Kam Heskin? Not really...

But what I had the biggest problem with was that this was supposed to be about a Danish prince, and that most of the movie is supposed to take place in Denmark, yet there were no Danish actors (in the first there was at least one), and the actors who where supposed to be Danish couldn't even speak Danish properly, and they almost didn't speak the language at all! I know Danish is a hard language to learn and to speak, the Queen of Denmark's husband doesn't even speak it that well after many years in Denmark, but then you need to employ at least A FEW Danes, instead of just teaching the actors a few words.

Most of the characters' names weren't good either. I don't know if the writer researched Denmark or Norway and Sweeden when finding names, but names like Rosalind and Edward are very rare, and not exactly typical royal names. Harald is not common either, at least not in Denmark. One of our princes' is name Felix! Joachim! Christian! Frederik! I have a whole list of this that seem wrong about the movie from a Danish perspective, I just needed to vent a few.

It just really annoys me that they couldn't take the time to make an effort. I heard the first movie was inspired by the love story of our future king and queen, Frederik and Mary, and in that case, I'm offended on behalf of the royal Danish family.

Gads, that movie was bad.


This is a spoiler comment. I enjoyed the first movies, so I assumed I would enjoy this movie. Wrong, Wrong, Wrong. Its a shame that they could destroy such a good movie. It had potential, but somewhere that was lost in the first 10 minutes. The actors in Prince & Me seem to fit and make magic. The only thing this movie did was clash. Having seen the first movie you would know that Paige or Eddie would find themselves being manipulated by someone that is so obvious. I am such a movie buff. I like most any movie made that is a comedy love story or a sappy love story. This is neither. Don't waste time watching, it is a big disappointment. Prince Eddie does show class in the movie, and I will say the only class.


Is this movie awful? Revolting? Noxious? No. But given how charming and well written the precursor was, there is no real excuse for this wretched venture into sequeldom. The only thing this film has going for it is a nice performance by Luke Mably, who doesn't seem to realize that he has wandered into a piece of utter rubbish. He stays the course he set in the original, and for that he deserves considerable credit. We have here virtually no one else on board from the original. Perhaps Mably was under contractual obligation for the sequel, maybe he just needed the money, who knows. But this is a movie to stay away from. My wife, who would ordinarily be such a movie's target audience, couldn't abide this steaming heap. A preposterous script that manages to instill boredom and distraction in viewers, caricature milquetoast villains, a predictable happy ending-- there is literally no there there in this movie. It's honestly not even worth renting on DVD, much less seeing in a theater. Better to chase down the first episode, or The Princess Diaries or even The Princess Bride if you're feeling the need for a dash of royalty in your life. Honestly, this movie is rotten on so many levels that there's not space enough to do justice to how bad it is. A Royal disappointment, indeed.


This was a bad movie!! First of all, I am Norwegian, so I understand danish, and the language Paige speaks in this movie is NOT danish!! I don't know which language she spoke, dutch maybe?? I don't know. And what happened to the actors from the first movie?? The actors in the first movie were great, but in this second movie the girl who play Paige SUCK!! And I hate the plot, don't directors have any imagination?? in this movie >_<

nothing was good in this movie, the actors were bad, their clothes, makeup and their hair -_______- I will NOT recommend this movie to anyone!!

Stay away from it......


How Come Replacement Actress Can Be Look Like Prostitute ? First Movie, Julia Stiles barely wears make-up, and straight short hair.

then when with this movie's opening scene, the girl came out with Wig & heavy make-up with horrible eye-shadows !!! it's one of worst thing, you don't wanna see on sequel, that changes not just the character, the look !!! not just the look, the whole package !!! beside watching lovely, also a little bit uncomfortable looking Luke Mably. this movie just screws, reputation of first movie.

Besides horrible acting and plot. music is unbelievably not suiting with each scenes.

and since when all this drama's story based on power game and politics ? or just trying to copy version of "what a girl wants" ?


I enjoyed PRINCE AND ME 1 so much more than the second one. The new actress that took over Julia Stiles' part did such a horrible job! She looked like she would fit the roles of some evil scheming step-sister or step-mother. I actually felt bad for Luke Mably since he's such a hottie. There was no chemistry between them. There were so many parts of the movie that was just so laughable because of it's poor acting skills from some of the characters. And certain scenes were incredibly stupid that it actually makes you ask yourself... "did they really just do that?" I feel sorry for the writer...i think she was high when she wrote it. SAVE YOUR MONEY...DON'T RENT THIS MOVIE...rent the first one!


I thoroughly enjoyed the first movie. But the sequel was horrible. Only Prince Edvard is the same actor. All the others have been replaced and the main characters personalities and the qualities that made you love them are just not there. There's a line in the first movie... Paige's mom says to Paige... "chemistry doesn't just happen in the class room and you two have it." They did... but they lost it. There is no on screen chemistry between Edvard and Paige in 2! It was just somebody trying to carry on the flame of a fairytale that was already that wonderful afterglow. They destroyed the beauty of the first movie by trying to find a replacements for its remarkable cast ! Just can't be done! PS Where'd his sister go? Just wondering.


This sequel was simply AWLFUL. Although I didn't let it change my feelings on the first one. I just don't see what is the point of bringing out a second one when 1. the ending of he firsts one was fine like is or try more harder to make a sequel when you can get actually find the time to get the original people back and make it done right. No wonder Luke didn't want to do, because I bet he probably the same way, but just hold his thoughts through the whole thing. This movie didn't make any sense to me at all. Exactly what audience was this movie was suppose to direct this at. Because I don't see this movie directing towards anything but the garbage.

There wasn't enough page and Eddie, their on screen chemistry sucked and Luke looked like he didn't want to be there at all. Soren as okay, the king and queen and page parents needed to go. IN Conclusion this movie as a big waste.


I think someone let a group of college kids get a hold of nice camera equipment while on spring break in Europe. But then, some of my college friends made better flicks than this. The acting was blatant, and though I'm not overly-critical and can usually set aside a poorly-cast film, I couldn't even focus on the movie because everything simply seemed forced. Bad chemistry coupled with predictable lines round off a wasted wait in line at RedBox. The only reason behind even getting the movie was that my wife loves cheesy, happy-ending type films (eg. The Ice Princess, Ella Enchanted) which I stomach for marital peace. Even she was unable to get herself into this one and only finished the movies because, even though you know how it will end, you just have to see it... well, because. I mean, really that's the ONLY reason to finish it. Just because. Because you don't have anything better to do. Because you would just waste your time some other way anyway and laziness keeps you from finding the remote. This movie takes a 'Because' cake. Because I said so.


First of all, the original "The Prince & Me" was good. This movie was just plain horrible. I agree with the original reviewer, this was not filmed in Denmark. The set (and I catch detail) looked like it was glued together. Just like it's awful sister "Princess Diaries: The Royal Engagement" (which was better) this was a bomb. Some awkward law stated a daughter, Kirsten (who appeared out of nowhere) is said to marry Edvard. Well blah blah blah, Paige (which if you turn her name from Morgan to Matthews, you got Paige from "Charmed") and oddly enough look kinda the same. Anyway, tabloid blah blah blah and girl rivalry and itching powder... Geez, can you get any more lame. Then after a little Harry Potter dungeon sitting, they find the loophole to this idiot-cratic (is that a word? LOL) marriage and voilà! They get married and live happily ever after... Did you ever have a doubt? Oh and BTW: Do not rent this on DVD, there is an error in the encoding that will not allow you to play the movie by pressing play. It's an Omen to let you know that this movie SUCKS!


I had seen the first movie some months ago and loved it, so when I saw the sequel came out, I couldn't wait to see it! Unfortunately, not only have most of the actors and actresses changed (Luke Malby is the only one who remains and is the only positive thing of the whole movie) but they have such little chemistry among each other that I almost felt ashamed watching. Between Luke and Kam the attempt to convince us they were the Edward and Paige from before felt so forced that I just kept asking myself all through the movie why did they change Julia Stilles, who had done such a great job. The producers obviously made more money than they thought with the first movie, and decided to make a second but came out with such a lousy result, that I think its a pity now that my image of the first movie is seconded with this sequel one! So if you loved the first, resist the temptation to spoil your memory with this second one!


I was very disappointed in this movie. I loved the first and was captivated by Luke Mably!!!! What a Hottie!!!! It had kind of the same feeling as The Princess Diaries 2. The story line of the two are very similar. A movie as wonderfully and beautifully written and done as The Prince and Me, I felt like the second could have been much better. Luke Mably played Prince Edvard as wonderfully as he did in the first and to be frank, he was the ONLY reason I continued to watch the film. He was still able to captivate me and take my breath away (I know corning!) as he did in the first!! The girl who played Paige was not my favorite and would not have been my first choice (Actually she would have been my last choice and I would have had to be desperate to pick her). THis movie was NOTHING but a disappointment!!Waste of time unless you are taken away by Luke Mably as I am!!


Do some research people. You gotta love Hollywood taking liberties with everything. I guess they think there is no one out there who knows anything about Denmark. I'm not even Danish but I know that one prince is married to someone who is not Danish, she is from Austalia , they were married in 2004, so the entire story line is unbelievable. And also, speeding around the streets of Denmark like the prince (or king as they called him) was, he would have probably hit one of the hundreds or thousands of bicyclists that ride in Copopenhagen everyday. 10 minutes of research would've helped this film a lot, But the again the acting was so brutal, they could've used the Library of Congress and still made a horrible film.


This sequel was dismal to say the least. The new Paige definitely can't act and I can't believe she is now in a Prince & Me 3 and 4. Huh? With such poor ratings in this one, why? It is the same old story, nothing new brought to the screen. One big fairytale. How does a normal girl fit into a world full of royals and the responsibilities that go along with it. She will make some big mistakes, yet in the end, the Prince will see all past that and say that he loves her, and live happily ever after. Oh yeah, in the beginning, they will be all fairytale and lovey dovey and then of course, not to bore us out of our wits with boredom of their lovey dovey, everything is grand kind of thing, there will be somebody who wants the crown and tries to spoil it for the happy couple only weeks before the wedding. Big shocker there! This time it is a girl in the name of Kirsten. She acts all sweet to Paige and Edvard but secretly trying to spoil things for Paige so she has some major stuffups. But Kirsten didn't need to try as Paige could make stuffups without help. Yes, the same thing happened in Princess Diaries, but at least you got to warm to Princess Mia. In this one, it seems to be all about revenge, that in this movie by the end, you don't care if Paige marries Edvard or not. He could've married Kirsten and I still would be happy.

In the end of course, Kirsten is humiliated, ( a lot of copying from other movies) and Edvard and Paige are married. Okay, some rehashing of old stories can sometimes be good, but that is where the actors really need to shine and make you fall in love with them like I did in The Princess Diaries. This story however, is not much different to the Princess Diaries, and "What a girl wants" movies put together. In Prince & Me 2, I couldn't warm to Kam?? Maybe it was the whole cast's poor acting abilities, except for Kirsten. (She would be my reason for giving this movie a 2 instead of 1) She was the best person of the movie, she at least had a bit of personality. Maybe not the best, but at least she had something. Definitely a B grade movie.


I selected the film from a sat.TV guide as a light entertainment, knowing absolutely nothing of it in advance and not having seen the original film. The opening sequences have greatly surprised me with scenery from my hometown Prague, complete even with Czech flags on one building. Later display of Danish flags could not dispel the confusion in the national identity the film was trying to portray. Same goes for signs on buildings and minor items like car registration plates. It appears the film was made on a shoestring budget, or else the film-makers could not wait another day till the Czech flags, displayed for national holiday or a prominent festival, were taken down before shooting city scenes. The plot was rather simple and predictable, the acting wooden overall, the heroine looked older, less attractive and lively than her opponent. I could not believe the lack of research that allowed a reference to a "5000year old Danish monarchy" into the dialog. Do not bother to watch unless you are a tourist who loved Prague during your visit and want to see the scenery again.


While I truly enjoyed the first movie, this one stinks, I mean really stinks. The only returning character is the guy playing King Edvard - everybody else ran a mile when they saw the scripts for this, what a joke and a bad one at that. Where is the continuation of the story? why is the father alive and well when he was dying in the first movie which is why the prince couldn't have a normal life and had to come home to save the monarchy. It really is abysmal when you get morons making a sequel (and heaven forbid a third instalment, this time the actor playing Edvard has gone and is played by someone else again) which they proceed to ruin completely. Did they not see the 1st movie, were they unaware it is a sequel and understand what a sequel is - a continuation????? No, they did not. How these fools ever get the money to make rubbish like this is beyond me. It tarnishes the memory of how good the 1st movie was, what a shame the fools who made this couldn't even be bothered to do it right.


OK, i just finished watching the whole movie. let me start by saying that my love for Julia stiles has nothing to do with it. the first movie rocked. it was funny, interesting and had clever humor. Paige was just that really cool girl that we all wanted to know, who had a life of her own and hobbies of her own and did not really NEED the prince, but in the second film she is portrayed as some dumb blonde bimbo. they didn't make her as "normal" (maybe common) as in the first film, they also made her completely dependent on the prince- having no hobbies other than him. even her dream to be a doctor seemed to be pushed aside. luckily, it wasn't completely brushed under the rug, like say.. the Prince's little sister! um yeah, not mentioned once in the second movie. and WHAT is up with that ugly hairdo? it's like, they didn't just change the actress, they changed the whole person. i couldn't see an ounce of the old Paige in the second movie. how very disappointing. Anyway, i just read that they're making a 3rd movie, to which i would advise them not to. they've gone over all the things they could, taking a new and original idea (the whole college guy turning out to be a prince thing) and turned it into some cheap tween-ager Disney movie. there's nothing to be saved, they should just give up before they invest money and time in any more dumb ideas.

in conclusion, i hope you understood that you should not expect anything from this movie. it does not remotely remind me of any bit of the first film.


Why? Why did they make this movie! It's so predictable and bad that I switched of the TV after the first 15 minutes. But then I decided to finish watching and it was a disappointment! While the first movie was in my opinion great and I still watch it sometimes, the second one is a disaster! Thank God it was aired on TV and I hadn't bought a DVD (but I wanted). It would have been a complete waste of money! I didn't like the second Paige and I compared her with the amazing Julia Stiles. The thing about the "Book" was copied from "Princess Diaries", the main characters didn't have a chemistry, Paige's rival was sooooo bad!!!!! And the King and the Queen didn't resemble monarchs!!!! How could that possibly be!


I had the unfortunate experience of viewing the Prince & Me original movie just before the sequel, the Prince & Me 2. The sequel had none of the charm and believability of the first, Whatever on-screen chemistry Julia Stiles and Luke Mably had in the first is completely lacking in the sequel. It's safe to say that Kam Heskin can't act her way out of a paper bag. When the marriage is called off, she's shows as much emotion as one hearing it would rain that day; a momentary contemplation, a shrug and off.

The only enjoyable part was seeing how Luke Mably matured from a care-free student to a more serious King of Denmark. As it should be.

This movie was completely disappointing, not only in the majority of new actors from the original, but the overall cheesiness of the production. Anyone who viewed Lady Diana Spencer's marriage to Prince Charles knows what a royal wedding looks like. The Prince & Me 2 perhaps paid $99 at David's Bridal for the wedding gown. The church was woefully empty of attendees. Very little pomp and almost no circumstance.

One thing that really gnawed at me were Paige's parents, also new actors. They dressed the father well in a very nice suit, but the poor bride's mother looked as if her clothes came from a rubbish bin. Yes, she's a farmer's wife, but believe me, lots of farmers I know have very attractive and well-dressed wives. And how did the parents fly from Podunk, America to Denmark in two hours? The space shuttle?

The script was predictable, the actors weren't stretched by any means and, sadly, when needed most of all, Paige was a dud. She had none of the sparkle, determination, honor and depth of character as written in the first film.

Others have gone into the historical inaccuracies and blase' treatment of Danish history, but 5,000 years indeed!!! There wasn't even a Denmark 5,000 years ago, much less a monarchy. Were they so low on funds that scene couldn't be re-shot??? If the writer made the mistake, was there no one - producer, director, even an actor - who didn't catch this? The role of Soren, so ably portrayed by Ben Miller, with sly sarcasm and stoic wit, in the original movie, was taken on by Jonathan Firth, the brother of able Colin. Unfortunately, the writing wasn't nearly as clever as the first, and subsequently, left Mr. Firth with nothing to work with.

The ball scene was also unbelievable. That a princess of the blood (Kirsten) wouldn't know how to dance? Commmmme onnnnnnnnn. And that an American girl could pull it off flawlessly with no visible training? My suspenders of disbelief were stretched to the max throughout this film, although I stuck it out to the end to give it a chance.

Best thing about the movie? The horses, purebloods all, unlike the actors.


Seriously,where in the world did they get her and who ever thought it was a good idea to hire her!She made the movie dreadful and she looked SO FAKE!Nothing like Julia,she was so down to earth and gave the character such a great presence.Maybe the movie would had been a little better if they had Julia there.The Prince didn't even seem interested in the new girl,sorry if i hadn't mentioned her name,i seriously don't even care to know it!LOL i sound like a hater,but i'm just warning you. I recommend to just not waste your time with this movie because it will ruined the magic and awesomeness of the first one.O and no wonder it went straight to DVD!They knew how horrendous that would had been for them!


I usually have higher tolerance with sequels since we both know how hard it is to make a good sequel,but this one is TOO AWFUL TO TOLERATE under any circumstances.

If you can't have your original cast in a sequel,at least find someone as good as the old one.I find myself picking at the new Paige's over-acting and gaudy appearance all the time.The original Paige was very smart and confident,who's so determined and brave about what she really wants.That's so lovable and inspiring for the audience.Julia Stiles does know how to portray these characters as a civilian queen-to-be.

On the other hand,the new Paige has no personality at all.She has nothing for the audience.I don't feel sorry for her at all when she's struggling in this relationship cause I don't even think they're in love,even just a little bit.Persuading the audience is one of the essential parts of acting!!!!!!

Apparently,Kam Heskin doesn't know how to be Paige.She's not special or gorgeous enough for the audience to accept her as Paige,especially Julia Stiles made such an excellent precedent.So,maybe I should go easy on her cause I think she might be pretty regretful as well.Just look at her hairstyle and the wedding dress!Looks extremely cheap and low budget!I'll never believe a queen will wear stuff like that!I just don't buy it!

If you ever watched Prince&I and very found of it,I strongly recommend you not to watch this sequel.Cause you might die from over disappointed! If you never watched Prince&I,you really should do whatever you can think of instead of watching this.


OK first of all, i hated it. I watched The Prince & me like 100 times like literally. but now u have just ruined it for me with the second one. First off u forgot some characters Eddies sister, and Page's older brothers, Pages best friend, second, you casted not one person that was in the first one in the second one, I loved that movie u just ruined it with the second one, Some of the characters i had no idea what the hell they were doing or who the hell they were. so i was completely lost throughout the whole movie. So I really hope that u stop producing this movie and i really hope that you all(producer, writer, and director) a different career. really i'm not lying, me and my friends are really disappointed and please stop making these horrible movies and i would like my money back(witch was 6 dollars) back you could sent it to me in a check or u could personally give me that money and i really hope that u stop making movies because truthfully you really suck at making them thank you for your time goodnight not love (at all) Jesi, Lexie, and Chelsea you have ruined my night completely goodnight you my e-mail me back if u have anything to say to prove to us that this movie doesn't completely suck ass