Deadwood is a landmark in TV dramatisation - technically as well as logistically. It's also a superb multi-level drama and a stunningly accurate-seeming (who knows for sure?) recreation of a Gold Rush town, with layers of thought-provoking parallels to our modern political situation. The trouble with its overall excellence is that one or two faults stick out like chicken bones in a tobacco wad.

Plot:(SPOILERS) Over the whole series there's a sense of anticlimax. Among the much-trumpeted gangs of hired guns and the convoluted human tragedies, the main baddie simply - leaves town; Swearengen decides to kill a scapegoat and that's it. We are already aware that he has a heart, so the decision not to kill Trixie is a given. While Deadwood is commendably faithful to the idea of realism in the plot most of the time, dramatically this becomes a letdown, and nor is it made clear enough why just killing Hearst wouldn't work. I anticipated a new take on a three-way gun battle, and when that didn't happen there wasn't much agonising about anything else. And there were far too many loose ends. Drama suffered here for realism's sake.

Characters: There are some classic cameos in Deadwood: my favourites are Doc Cochran, Reverend Smith (why no website profile?) and Richardson, and Trixie is amazingly modern and three-dimensional. The character that doesn't work for me is Calamity Jane, in spite of Robin Weigert's faultless realisation of the script. I see where Milch is coming from - she's a lovable drunk, as opposed to, say, Steve the unlovable drunk - but you only have to see one photo of the actual woman to realise that they've been extremely kind in their casting. If you're going to make Calamity Jane's reason for being in it being a pioneering lesbian, she's got to be the bullest of bull dykes. Robin Weigert's just a misunderstood tomboy. Where was the realism here? I also feel that there are eventually too many characters introduced: if you left the Langrishe Theatre Group out completely it would make very little difference to the overall plot, and while Brian Cox is as good as I've ever seen him, that particular brand of scenery-chewing tends to rub off on the other actors - and it did. Powers Boothe turned from a believable rival to Al into a moustache-twirling pantomime villain, less convincing than E.B. Farnum. The two sassy soldiers at the Stirgis election were fantastically menacing; where was the menace (apart from Hearst per se) in Deadwood itself?

Performances: The one performance that really lets Deadwood down (from an Olympian height) for me is Timothy Olyphant. He looks great, and ranges from caring husband to psycho killer beautifully. So why is it that I keep thinking he's about to burst out laughing at the wrong moment? Maybe he's just trying to hide his cute teeth, instead of baring and grinding them. He's like Roger Moore as James Bond: just too smooth. I wonder if that's why they kept giving Seth Bullock all those scars. The face-pummelling on the floor almost becomes a running gag.

From the start, I really thought Deadwood was going to blow me away. In the end, while it sets the bar for Hi-Def TV to come, I felt it got bogged down in all that realism, and eventually stopped being a better-than-first-rate drama and became a first-rate docu-drama with a bit too much over-acting in places and far, far more cast than was well utilised. But it's a pioneering chunk of TV, best seen and heard in HD.


I'm watching the DVDs of DEADWOOD third season and it seems that somewhere near the middle or the end of season two, Milch's writing became infected with writing disease. You can usually sleep this off, but perhaps the production schedule prohibited that.

Many people in entertainment forums marvel at Milch's writing, but it's a question of balance. Forgive the cliché, but sometimes "less is more". The Shakespeare bug bit Dave, apparently, and, no, it's not that he's trying to write like Shakespeare wrote, but he's trying, way too hard, to write GREAT--and he can't. Here and there he can, yes, but not for every character in every other line. A little greatness goes a long way.

Something gotta give when almost everyone is speaking in their very own stilted "high-style". The scenes bog down. The flow of the story falters, and even stops. Make way for The Writing! The story even becomes predictable, because every scene is merely a vehicle for Milch-speech. You're walking along, trying to groove with the story, and you step in a sticky puddle of piddle.

This is not how people apprehend a story, through the preciously special use of "language". People apprehend a story by identifying with its characters, perhaps in spite of the writing, and Milch's writing--like Mamet's, by the way--too often shackles the actors, and literally tries to steal the scene from them, always for the worst. The "writing", having a life of its own, eclipses the characters, that the actors have busted their guts over to bring to life. There ends up being just one character: Milch.

Having said that, I notice the stories flow better when people other than Milch write. Plot comes first, it seems, when others write. As it should. Minus the goofy "comic relief" half-scenes, the stories are compelling, and I'm sorta sorry there won't be another season--even if I believe Deadwood is pretty much tapped out.


After hearing nothing but praise I finally got to see the first season of Deadwood.

What struck me again and again is the awfully affected performance by Molly Parker. While the rest of the cast speak in clear tones, Molly Parker speaks in studied whispers. Her transformation from addict does not change her self-conscious and unauthentic performance. She is simply unable to deliver a line or word without constant nervous affectation.

She is also sexless, so the "blossoming" love affair has no spark. Why anyone would think that Parker is an actor of talent is beyond me. Her performance is at odds with the rest of the reliable cast.

I find the use of the constant swearing distracting because it is anachronistic. The odd modern swear word would have impact but it is excessive and soon becomes tiresome.

Basically, the show is not as good as it thinks it is.


OK this film has virtually no budget for a sci-fi movie and no real stars to speak of other than Peter 'Robocop' Weller but that doesn't matter because what it does have is a good story well told. It's a shame that bigger budget sci-fi productions never seem to remember that sci-fi should be have an interesting premise and not just throw a few explosions at the screen every few minutes.

What is on offer in Screamers is a solidly entertaining 1hr 40mins of sci fi fun, reasonable acting and a great story based on a Phillip K Dick short. The main idea of screamers is a very scary one a war that had been taken over by machines that fight on our behalf a war that can't be stopped.

For sci-fi fans this is a must see, for everyone else it's still solidly entertaining 7/10


Screamers impressed the heck out of me. Reviews I'd read of it called it a "slasher" movie and said that it was highly derivative of other movies, such as Aliens and Blade Runner.

In fact, I found it to be highly imaginative and original, very much in the spirit of the Philip K. Dick story that inspired it, pondering the ultimate meanings of humanity, war and technology. The scenery and story surrounding the film were both intriguing: despite the film's low budget, the director did an excellent job of constructing the devastated planet. Peter Weller and Jennifer Rubin turned in excellent performances, and the supporting cast was also quite good. Finally, every scene is shot with a real urgency to it; particularly well done are the nightmarish confrontation 2/3 of the way through the movie and the poignant and shattering ending. In short, this is a very very good movie and well worth renting. It will stay with you for quite a while.

Before signing off, I should say something about construing one science fiction movie as a ripoff of others. Screamers had elements of its plot which can be found in other films (ie men and machines, monsters) but it blends them seamlessly into its own original story. The mere presence of identifiable elements from other films has given people ground to criticize this movie as unoriginal. By their standards, I don't think it would be possible at all to make new movies or novels or anything. These surface similarities will always be there. One can argue that the Matrix is merely an update of Socrates' cave allegory. In conclusion: ignore the critics and see Screamers!!


Screamers is a futuristic Sci-Fi Horror set on another planet, Sirius 6B. The film starts off very poorly with a narrative spoken in a robotic voice, indicating that Screamers will be no more than Z-grade garbage. Luckily, Screamers proves to be a respectable, suspense filled film that superbly displays the extremes of raw human emotions.

Screamers always has the advantage that it was written by Philip K. Dick, the author whose stories lead to Blade Runner, Total Recall and Minority Report. Whilst Screamers is no way in the same league as these films, it is much more thought provoking and gripping than other Sci-Fi films on a similar budget. The pace at which the plot moves is extremely intense; it seizes the attention of the audience and leaves them waiting for the next scene. The relationships between each character are all very compelling; every character has their own little story which ensures Screamers does not become one dimensional.

Peter Weller is excellent in his role as Hendrickson. I've only seen him in Robocop so it is good to know he is not simply good at playing a robot. His character is complex as he misses earth, yet has submitted to being stuck on Sirius 6B. His relationship with Jessica (Jennifer Rubin) develops wonderfully throughout the film and is a good contrast to the horror taking place. Jennifer Rubin also puts on a great performance as her character starts as a mystery and gradually opens up in to someone the audience really cares for.

The "Screamers" are a tremendous idea as underground defence robots who adapt to produce a new, human looking batch of screamers. The sound they make is very chilling and really brings up the hairs on the back of your neck; this is greatly reflected in the characters reactions on hearing the screams. Sadly, poor stop motion effects mean it is a disappointment when it comes to seeing the screamers attack but it is not hard to overlook special effects for a good story.

It is a shame Screamers wasn't given more budget as it had potential to be a truly great film. I don't care about special effects very much but I feel the films vision could have been realised more if there was more money in this area. Also some of the sets are poorly designed as there appears to be a lack of effort in some places. The outlook is supposed to be bleak but the director does little to emphasise this.

Possibly the best thing about Screamers is the end. With paranoia levels reaching those in The Thing, the twist at the end is very surprising and tense. Weller and Rubin really shine in these scenes and do well to affect the audience's emotions. The script, which is good throughout, is also especially good in the final sequence.

With more money behind it and better direction, Screamers would be a Sci-Fi classic, as it is, Screamers is an underrated, well acted, great story.


Based on a Phillip K. Dick story (the writer of "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep," which was the background for "Blade Runner") this movie delivers, but suffers because of the apparently tight budget. Some scenes in here reminded me of the original "Star Trek" episodes, where the production crew had to become quite inventive to get effects on an almost non-existing budget.

So movies low on money have to rely on their scripts and on good actors, and "Screamers" has them both. The story and its subplots could serve for three movies and especially Peter Weller showed a superb performance here. Generally there are some weaknesses, but they can be forgiven, if you allow yourself to get into the story.

If you have enough of FX loaded movies that cover their thin plot with a multitude of explosions, then give it a try.


Under rated, scary, yes, even creepy. I LIKE IT! I rented the DVD years ago, and look to buy it for my collection... to put next to my soldier and starship troopers dvds, no less. Petter Weller carried the movie. No doubt about it. The whiny, phsycologically scarred soldier from the NEBs was far better tolerated than Mr "Game over man!" from Aliens (bill paxton at his unusual worst). This movie deserved a better budget, but was well made within what they had. Yes, I see the static back drops... a far cry from the dynamic CG animated ones we have grown used to in recent films. However, the "Outer Limits" style of cinematogrophy worked well for me. Okay, everyone just getting up and dusting themselves off after launching a mini-nuke into their kid-infested base was unrealistic and could have been portrayed better. The David screamer caught me off guard from the beginning, I didn't suspect anything until he was shot. And the chick? classic move. The teady bear at the end was UBER CREEPY... and begs for a WELL DONE sequel... with Peter Weller... or else don't even try. Mark this as one of my favorite unsung movies. A must see for the SCI-FI afficianado.


Another highly entertaining sci-fi film based on a Philip K. Dick short story which I have subsequently read; and I agree with other reviewers that the movie is true to the story for the most part.

Have yet to view a movie based on a Dick story that wasn't enjoyable, e.g., Blade Runner, Minority Report. If you liked either of those movies,you will enjoy this movie for its intelligent entertainment.

Weller's character Hendricksson is fairly straight forward as a disenchanted commander believing that his command has been abandoned and that their battles on this outpost planet have been made irrelevant by the higher authorities. Consequently, Hendricksson sets out to bring a truce proposal to the enemy forces.

But technology gone awry rears its ugly head in the form of self-manufacturing killing devices known as the screamers named for their high pitched sound just before they slice and dice humans.


Obviously most people didn't think this movie to be much anything special, although I tend to disagree. I thought this movie was probably one of the best sci-fi films in years that I've seen. Peter Weller (best known as RoboCop) is also a very under-rated actor who deserves some good roles these days. The only problem with this movie was the very poorly done special fx. I'm sure if this movie would have been given a bigger budget it would have done better in theaters.


For the few who happen to be fans of Peter Weller, this is certainly one to hang onto. A great little film that is just as brutal and vicious as any movie by Paul Verhoeven. I was surprised Verhoeven didn't direct a film like this. A little cheesy, but often times interesting, Screamers is a little film I like quite a bit. The funny thing is, I liked this film, even though I had watched Twelve Monkeys just a couple hours earlier (I did a little theater hopping). A cool little film with a freaky ending.


A well made, gritty science fiction movie, it could be lost among hundreds of other similar movies, but it has several strong points to keep it near the top. For one, the writing and directing is very solid, and it manages for the most part to avoid many sci-fi cliches, though not all of them. It does a good job of keeping you in suspense, and the landscape and look of the movie will appeal to sci-fi fans.

If you're looking for a masterpiece, this isn't it. But if you're looking for good old fashioned post-apoc, gritty future in space sci-fi, with good suspense and special effects, then this is the movie for you. Thoroughly enjoyable, and a good ending.


This was a pretty faithful adaptation of Philip K. Dick's story, "The Second Variety". The only major difference is that instead of a Cold War setting on Earth, they used a corporate setting on a colony world.

So why did this movie rock? Because they stuck to the story, which was quite a good one, of killer robots who decide to ignore their programming to attack the enemy and consider all humans the enemy, and have developed a way to replicate them in the process.

Peter Weller, whom I don't consider a great actor, is at his best here, as a war weary commander who stumbles onto this shocking fact, as he tries to get back to his base to warn his comrades. Jennifer Rubin is pretty good as a killer android who doesn't know what she is until the climax.

They gave it a happier ending than Dick did, but still, a solid film.


Contemporary releases in sci-fi/horror genre prove that rich Hollywood filmmakers are running out of ideas. This film is really an excellent example of how you can do a great job with almost no money.

The greatest thing in Screamers is that there is a message in it. It's just a way the real art should be - it should make people think, dream, use their imagination and not only consume the finished and totally digested pieces of information. And I think not many expensive Hollywood productions (especially sci-fi) are successful in this regard.

So, for instance, the idea that someone who looks human, can be a rusted dead machine inside and you can never say who's who judging from their appearance. Or the forsaken soldiers who sacrifice their lives in a pointless war, which was forgotten by the governments who started it. Blood is cheaper than raw materials - this is also reflecting the main principles of our life today.

In my opinion you mustn't have one million explosions or world-famous stars in a movie to make it good. It's just a good story, an appropriate atmosphere and some really well done acting to make it good. And in my opinion Screamers has all these elements.


I saw this movie for the first time many years ago. I watched it by chance; after renting a Hollywood box office action film. I had two movies that I wanted to rent, but the 2nd movie was out. So I browsed the movies and picked this one since it had an interesting name & Peter Weller was in it. Screamers was a last choice rental. I'm glad I rented this movie, it was a lot better than the box office movies I rented. True this movie has a very low budget but thats what makes it great. It has the great sorta feel of (John Carpenter's The Thing). Its a desolete kind of movie. The acting in this movie is good, especially by Peter Weller. This movie is about the morality of machines made by man to fight other men, and then all of man fighting evolving machines that want to be like man, that use mans weaknesses against man. The premise is very intelligent, and the amount of action is perfect for the story to unfold. This movie will make you think! Well, It made me think. This movie is quite entertaining and is one of my all time favorites. It could of been improved a little bit but only by the supporting casts acting. If this movie had a large or very large budget, it would have been made for larger group of the masses, and therefore it would have sucked! If you like sci-fi this is a must see! or addiction for any collection.


Set in the distance future and in a place far far away, Screamers is an excellent sci-fi flick about two warring entities whom both have been long since forgotten. For the past 10 years, Sirius 6B has been shaped by the face of nuclear war and now it will be shaped by a another, more smarter, and aggressive entity called a Screamer. A Screamer was a man-made robot (sent to help one side) complete with an advanced A.I. who lurks beneath the ground waiting for its prey. Waiting silently and patiently. But little do both sides know that this man-made robot has got a few tricks up its own sleeve. Screamers is a amazing movie that features lots of suspense, plot turns, and a few good comedy scenes of its own. If you enjoyed Pitch Black or Red Planet, this is a great movie to add to your collection.


For you complaining about woody acting: this is not a bug, it is a feature. It makes sense the same way it makes sense that the type three is not attacked by the screamers, when you understand what it really is.

All these droids and their characters are artificial. Their characters are designed.

The machines who designed them have read some Shakespeare, it seems, and watched stereotypical American warrior stories.

Get it? It is crappy, but it is meta crappy. Like in Total Recall you are looking at traces of someone else's story within the story.


This is an excellent scifi. The genre is usually dominated by "touchy-feely" stories which have men exposing their soft gooey center, or "horror" stories which have men exposing their soft gooey center. In either case man is shredded into little pieces for the audiences pleasure. I find both of these types to not be "scifi" I think of them as "fantasy with the watchable part being scifi."

This movie avoids the pitfalls of femininazation and horrorization (is that redundant? :) and instead remains true to the original intent of the genre' - a true scifi. 9/10

I found the ending annoying, which if cut would push this movie up to 9.5/10. But half-a-point does not ruin this movie at all. If you like *REAL* scifi's, like this one, then also see the movie version of "Lost in Space."

-Zafoid

PS: Kudos to the special effects. They were absolutely brilliant - from equipment to backdrops and the robotics!

-Z


On a desolate planet, two factions are at war with each other, but there is another menace out there tunneling beneath the ground. An 'autonomous mobile sword', or screamer, is an incredibly quick weapon named for its high-pitched shrieking, and which cuts its victims into pieces. It turns out, these weapons seem to be evolving on their own, and become capable of taking on new forms.

Based on a Philip K. Dick novel (his works have also inspired the films "Blade Runner" and "Total Recall"), this is better than your run-of-the-mill, filmed-in-Canada B-movie. Slowly, deliberately paced, dialog heavy, subtle, and atmospheric, it's rewarding for those who stick with it. It looks quite impressive - special effects are excellent, rarely ever getting overtly cheesy - and the indoor / outdoor sets and location work are phenomenal. The snowy, windswept landscape is photographed quite well. Overall, it's quite a nice film to look at.

Co-scripted by Dan O'Bannon of "Alien" fame, that gives it some extra punch, as he always tends to do quite well in the realm of science-fiction. The acting is good - Peter Weller is a stalwart, and refreshingly, not one-note, hero, and is supported capably by Roy Dupuis ("The Rocket"), Andy Lauer, and the lovely Jennifer Rubin ("A Nightmare on Elm Street 3: Dream Warriors", "Bad Dreams"). Some of the characters are abrasive, although that thankfully never became too much of a distraction. The story twists are actually not ones that really surprised me, but I appreciated the story-telling in general.

"Screamers" *is* a nice little surprise, worth looking into for science-fiction buffs who have yet to see it. It's bleak, chilly, interesting, and reasonably entertaining stuff. I recommend it.

7/10


Really, I mean that this is a self-contained movie; it sets up a premise, a backdrop, characters... and manages to deliver. The grainy/gritty look of this film is really commendable, and instead of just saying "Killer robots!" and putting it on autopilot the filmmakers kept throwing little bits and pieces of creativity out there. Peter Weller is perfect for his role and develops great repartee with the greenie who tags along with him to... some pretty nice matte paintings. Budgetary constraints aside the movie looks good, the spaceships look good, the robots look good, and this is simply the kind of unified enterprise that doesn't get made with $100,000,000 and Bruckheimer producing (what is it with the Germans? I mean, Devlin and Emmerich and Bruckheimer?). So watch it, it's enjoyable and competent until the last 15 minutes.


I believe the original story that this film is based on is called "Second Variety", a great post-apocalyptic novel by Sci-fi meister Philip K. Dick. The film captures some of the terror from the original story, but director Christian Duguay and storywriter Dan OBannon fails to deliver the film that this had the potential to become. Philip K. Dick's stories adapted to film have previously been great successes, like "Blade Runner" and "Total Recall". So why Duguay and OBannon chose to rewrite the ending completely into one of the worst cases of "Hollywood Happy Ending" I've ever seen, and in doing so completely removing the the ENTIRE plot of the original story, leaves me a bit provoked.

My vote: 4 out of 10


This movie starts off well. When the guy comes to the main characters base with that scrool then he is chopped up by the screamers. The plot also starts of well. Little ground digging (like miniature versions of those things in "Tremors") robots are used for war, and guys on the same side as them wear wrist bands that let the screamers know they are of the same side. The people in the base have to smoke some red cigarettes to protect their lungs from something in the air "We have to protect our lungs from sh*t by putting sh*t in them". But this movie gets bad in a hurry. We really want to turn it off when those kids (screamers in kids bodys) are walking and the main characters going "help me". But some decent special effects and ok atmostphere let me give this film 6/10.


----SPOILERS INCLUDED---- not that it matters for such a horrible film, though...

Carnivorous robots in outer space that self-mutate and multiply underground before annihilating everyone on a forgotten planet in the future... does it sound like the recipe for a REAL turkey? Well, surprise, surprise: it is.

It's hard to even begin shredding this unwitting parody of a horror sci-fi. Maybe they should let some of those "screamers" do the job instead: let them loose on the original reels. Good riddance. And take the script too, as you go; if you can find one, that is.

Don't worry about the writers and producers; this film was probably the result of some alien self-mutating process deep down some forgotten Hollywood vault anyway. Oh, help us if these films start self-multiplying as well.

OK, Peter Weller is decent, that's one star. The rest? Hrm. A clue: don't waste money renting this film to find out.

If you're easily thrilled/scared by little lumps of unused screenplay crumpled up and dragged by string under a sand surface, then this is for you.

If not, you'll agree that the title "Screamers" probably was inspired by the envisioning of hordes of horrified moviegoers stampeding out of theatres, panicking at the thought of having spent any money on this crap. Now there's a sight that would probably have made a better horror movie, but that's beside the point.

Thank IMDb that there is a site like this to warn other people about wasting parts of their precious lives on this garbage.

FINAL GRADE: Epically bad.


I am still amused and confused why this stinker ever made it to the theater. The poor plot and nonexistent story made this one of the worst movie going experiences that you could waste money seeing. It has all the look and acting of a really poor direct to video feature.


If you ever, God forbid, think of renting this movie, DON'T. It is the worst, most boring piece of trash I have ever seen. I was ready to shoot myself ten minutes into this so called 'movie'. Do not watch this movie, EVER!!! If you are with friends and they all agree to watch this movie, do EVERYTHING you can to escape!!


I saw this film years ago, when it first came out at the cinema. Even after the first 10 minutes I found myself laughing at the apparently serious film. The special effects were bad - with the exception of a computer generated sequence at the end of the film, and the melting plasticine woman was good too...hmm. The low budget was especially visible when a Microsoft® Natual Keyboard is seen in the film, obviously a high-tech computer would need one. If you have nothing better to do and love anything sci-fi then watch it - you might get a laugh out of it.


No plot. No dialogue. One decent actor (Peter Weller, who's probably trying to forget his involvement). Zero redeeming qualities. Lots and lots of pointless walking through wastelands. Special effects that make the Dr. Who folks envious. Do yourself a favor, don't watch this film. Please.


Seen it years ago when it came out to rent and again this year on DVD, it is a good film but still in the straight to video bunch of films, some FX are really good for such a film and some are not so hot but it has been done to the best of there budget which has not been much, any weak parts are made up by a good story one i would like to have seen run another 20 mins or more as it seems to end just as its getting in full swing, this is all down to budget mind, if the film had more money, bit more gritty. bit more spent on FX, better lighting, more depth on story, then who knows this could of been a very very good film to push other films such as ALIEN and others, but as it is 7 out of 10


Woah... I saw it in 1996 in a theater near my small Provençal village, and i simply wasn't expecting that... Christian Duguay proved once again he was terribly underrated by both the press and the public, "Screamers" ("Planète Hurlante" in France i/e "Screaming Planet", nice title too...) is the B-side at its best, the B-efficiency with an almost-A script. The cast is OK (Roy Dupuis was almost a star here in the early 90s, the VFX impressive (for the most of them), and - as some viewers wrote earlier - the first part very promising. Overall, a good job. Take it on video with a couple of friends, some chips'n'soda (ok, beer if ya want).


Thats right. Those small kid robot things. Uhhhhhh *shudders*.

Anyway, a good sci-fi flick that sometimes a bit cheesy but otherwise it dosen't let you down as far as action and suspense goes. Christian Duguay, Dan O'Bannon and Philip K. Dick did a fair job at a movie that has a decent jab at the sci-fo genre. Although one of the lesser sci-fis(in my opinion) the storyline would have to be one of the best and the characters fit in perfectly. Peter Weller does a splendid job as Hendricksson. His acting performance is probably up there with his robocop one and it probably lifted his career to new heights. Special effects impress for 1995, as this helps lift 'Screamers' to new heights. A good movie for anyone who wants a creepy sci-fi.

Overall: 70%


Stories by Philip K. Dick always get transformed into good science fiction films. First there was Blade Runner, then came Total Recall and now we have Screamers.

Screamers is fairly low-budgeted (I think around 10 - 12 million dollars), but it is really, really good. The script is ace because its written by Dan O'Bannon (Alien, Total Recall), and the director knows exactly what he's doing. It stars Peter Weller (from RoboCop), and he really shines as an actor in this film. Andy Lauer, who plays the rookie who is ironically nicknamed Ace, is also very good, as are Roy Dupois who plays the mysterious Becker, and Jennifer Rubin who plays Jessica.

The story is interesting and has a sense of paranoia, because you never know who is a Screamer (a killer robot), and who isn't. The futuristic sets of a war-ravaged planet are also excellent, and the costumes and props to go with it are good too.

The only thing that lets it down are the special effects. For some parts they are ok, like the spaceship taking off at the end. But the rest are not so good, such as the stop-motion Screamers that are outdated and when Becker gets shot in half.

Overall, I think this is a very good movie. If it had a slightly higher budget to sort out those special effects it would get full marks, but as it is I give it 8/10.


I'm a big fan of Philip K. Dick, and so I already knew the basic story behind Screamers. (it was based on a short story of his). On seeing the film, I was satisfied with the way that they managed to work around the original's cold war trappings. Also, despite the low budget, the effects were sufficiently good to suspend disbelief. In fact, the attention to detail (surroundings, back-ground, odd gadgets etc.) was excellent, as is important in all sci-fi films...by creating a coherent world, the movie becomes that much more convincing. The performances were excellent, for such a low budget, and some of the lines were very quotable (up there with the script of 'Aliens' if you ask me). This is always an advantage. However, right at the end, I felt a little let down by the love-scene. It kind of destroyed Philip k. Dick's 'message'. Nevertheless, I managed to overlook that, considering how much fun it was.

This film is no classic, but it's well worth a look. It's really quite good!


The Shakespearean references and underlying philosophical "being and becoming" themes involving machine and human nature, elevate this above average Sci-Fi film to the "next level". Not as classic a film as the existential "Blade Runner" but worthwhile nevertheless.


What a terrible movie, every thing about this movie makes me want to take a shower to wash off the filth! The mistakes in this movie are too much for one to handle. For some reason when they parachute from the Hercules in the beginning and hit water it changes from day to night in under 30 seconds and some how they have rubber dingies with huge boat engines that someone had to have had in they're pocket and blew up, because is isn't visible that anyone had any packages when the dove out from the plane. then when they hit land, for some reason they dress up as hobo's while they're still carrying around M4's and Ak's, while trying to be under cover.This is soon followed by the Rangers wandering around the streets taking they're hobo-taskic costumes off, after they only had them on for about 3 minutes, you can't blame them, this film is such a steaming pile of crap I would've refused to dress like a jack-ass. When Joe-Joe dies, and his eyes are about to be closed, you can see that his eyes are closed to begin with. Matt Macoy then shows off his ability to shoot guns while blinking like a mad man. Matt Macoy dosen't even look like someone who'd be in the military, he looks like that substitute teacher who would always try to control you class and yell ' Guys....Guys...Guys comon'.....Guys....comon'guys...' and all you can do is laugh at him as you jump on you desk and shoot spitballs at him. Then you can see a guy who looks like Mister T on a different vehicle in a scene, then in the next scene he's on a different vehicle and then back on the first vehicle. I also never realized that you can shoot a bazooka at someone 10 feet away and nothing will happen to you, and that some people can throw a grenade and it will blow up instantly with a 30 foot high explosion. Also, its great to have a 9mm pistol that can hold up to 40 rounds and can take out 4 car tires in one shot. And the random goons who storm the office building shooting at papers on desks is pretty cool, if you like random goons who shoot at paper on desks that is. Also if your going to take on the U.S. army, there's no better way to do it with 65 guys that look like they shop at the G.A.P., gather them all up, buy a couple dingies, illegally enter America on these dingies, grab a couple of U-Haul vans and go to some building with a whole bunch of barricades around it and start shooting at desks. The icing on this crap-fest is the highly intense bus chase, because there is nothing more exiting than two buses driving in circles. If you want to waste 90 minutes of your life watch this, but I suggest you do it with some friends, one man can't take on the dark forces of this movie alone.


The TV guide described this as " Fast and furious " , well I`d describe this film as diahorrea because it`s fast and furious faeces . I wasn`t expecting it to be up to much but I was shocked as to what a poor film RANGERS is<br /><br />****** POSSIBLE SPOILERS ******* But don`t worry you won`t want to see this movie

The film starts with an airborne shot of a hercules C-130 then it cuts to the interior of the plane - Which in no way resembles a C-130 , It resembles a gym changing room ! - where we`re introduced to the characters in some of the most painful exposition I`ve seen of having the leader discuss what the mission is and why they`re all wearing Syrian army uniforms.

Cut to some stock footage of men skydiving from a plane at dawn and then landing into the sea where they inflate a couple of rubber dingys underwater then cut to them resurfacing where it`s pitch black ! Some team of special forces if it takes them all day to inflate a couple of dingys . And wouldn`t the delta force or navy SEALS be doing this sort of stuff ? I`m just kind of curious why this film is called RANGERS ?<br /><br />So they carry on with their mission which confused me because if they`re posing as Syrians then that can only mean the action is taking place in Syria or the Lebanon ,neither country being at war so why`s this taking place in the middle of a war zone ? It gets worse though because one of the team says :<br /><br />" This jobs easier than that twenty buck hoe I had in Las Vegas "<br /><br />Yup there`s nothing more endearing to an audience than knowing one of the heroes has to pay for sex . In fact would a prostitute in Vegas be charging as little as twenty bucks ? Shows you how bad a film like RANGERS is when you find yourself asking questions like that .

Enough . I could spend several pages writing about this piece of garbage but it`s not worth it . It`s a cheap straight to video film composed of stock footage and a bunch of non actors giving the impression they`re making the story up as they go along . I won`t finish on the old cliche that I wasted ninety minutes of my life on this crap because I only wasted thirty minutes of my life on it as I turned it off when the guy got blown out of the window


Matt McCoy stars as Scott,a Navy Seal who is the target of wrath of Shannon (Glenn Plummer) who thinks Scott sold him out, he didn't but that doesn't stop Shannon from abducting Scott's wife, or blowing up various figures in the pentagon, once again absurd plot twists come up and the flick rips off many action sequences to give it a more explosive look in this terrible yet funny movie. Where do I even start with this one? Well for one the whole commentary in which Wynorski keeps referring to the footage stolen as Delta Force 2, but it's actually Delta Force 1! Other such action sequences are from Red Heat,Invasion USA and Navy Seals. Rangers is utterly absurd with acting so wooden, action sequences so obviously lifted and plot angles so over the top ridiculous that you cannot believe they are serious. For instance the guy (footage necessary from Invasion USA) blows up his friend's house, not even knowing that his friend wasn't in on it? Or how the government don't do anything to stop this guy after he blew up the pentagon, jeez how dense are these guys? It gets even funnier if you pretend that McCoy is playing his Police Academy or Seinfeld character. However let me just conclude this is as hilarious as terrible movies get.

1/2* Out of 4-(Awful)


But it was very efficient by recycling action scenes and stock footage from other knuckleheaded action movies. Especially silly was the ripping off the beach landing and final battle scenes from "Invasion USA". Really, terrorists are supposed to be stealthy, not stupid using WWll vintage landing craft.


Hilarious. Priceless. Terrible. These are three of the many single words that I would use to illustrate "Rangers", one of those action pictures that seem to run on cable at around 10 at night. One of those films where it looks like many of the action scenes were shot in the director's backyard and several scenes look like stock footage. After a title sequence that looks wonderfully 80's, we're launched into the story itself A group of commandos is sent to bring back a terrorist from an unnamed country, but find out that the group knows they're on the way. After a few remaining members barely make it out, they find out that they'd been set-up, or something like that. One of their rangers they thought they'd left behind is actually working for the bad guys and suddenly comes back looking for revenge. Every other line is some other variation on, "you have no idea what I've been through!" or "the mission! We must not forget the mission!". Every action-movie cliche is spoken at some point throughout the film - but what makes it occasionally unintentionally hilarious is the straight-faced, wooden acting that attempts to take every single like incredibly serious. Ok, so there are occasionally some decent production values (a few respectable explosions), but as with all of these low-budget action films, the script seems to have been made up along the way. Obviously, these films don't cost a great deal and can end up being bought for cable or home video release (as Fox has done with this film and the equally terrible monster picture "Python"). The storyline almost doesn't even matter in a film like this one (nor do a few continuity errors) - the movie simply attempts several old-school, low-budget action sequences (according to the commentary, apparently some bits of the final action sequences are new, but many are actually cut in from a different, old action movie altogether). Corbin Bernsen receives top billing for, according to the commentary, three hours of work. The director and the main actor discuss their work on the film's commentary track and thankfully seem fully aware what they've created.


This supposed action pic should be marketed as a comedy. Of errors that is. Wooden acting, a ridiculous plot, and numerous continuity errors could be over looked if you watch this as a laff packed action fest. Right from the get go you know your in la la land when the rangers jump out of a Hercules transport at dawn somewhere over the mideast, but then after a water landing they surface in the dark! The continuity errors continue throuout the pic, costumes and make up change multiple times within scenes. But ya know what, it does'nt matter! The script is even more ludicrous. After the Rangers capture a terrorist and bring him to the USA the bad guys do a night landing of several hundred baddies on a FL beach using WW2 landing craft! Yuh Right!

All this does'nt matter if you view this as a 6 pack comedy! You get paratrooper fu! Our favorite 90's [and new millennium!] bad guys, the typical Hollywood Arab idiots, and best of all, a duelling bus-fu chase to top it all off! I love bus chases... esp. when trains are involved!


One of the weaker entries in the Drummond series, but it's still entertaining. Perhaps I've seen too many of the Drummond films too close together. The humor is not as sharp as earlier entries. The pacing is fine, but the plot and villains don't seem to be up to snuff. The villains don't appear evil or sharp enough to harm a fly, let alone our hero.

There is a nice sequence of that wonderful 30s "lab equipment" working its magic. So much more exciting and dramatic than computer chips and LEDs! Now that's evil!


This entry begins with another wedding about to take place. One of the gifts is a huge diamond, brought by Algy, and created by his father in law. It turns out that he has a process for making diamonds for as cheap as a shilling each. This, of course, would upset the balance of trade and the diamond industry would be destroyed. He still wants credit for his findings, but it brings a whole host of bad people into the mix. The best scene is Tenny riding a motorcycle and crawling onto a moving car. He, of course, is the best character in all of the movies I've seen, and once again is called on to fix things. There are murders. There are notes destroyed. The whole state of the world's economy is never really taken care of. Ours is not to worry about such things, I guess. There are several cases of mistaken identity which makes this a lot of fun.


Another trip to the altar for Bulldog Drummond is averted when at a pre-wedding gathering in Switzerland a Swiss detective is murdered and an artificial diamond, courtesy of its inventor Halliwell Hobbes to bride and groom John Howard and Louise Campbell. That sets off a round of a little over an hour of fast paced adventure as Drummond once again shows up Scotland Yard.

Bulldog Drummond's Peril steps into the realm of science fiction with Halliwell Hobbes inventing a machine that can create diamonds, a process we know takes millions of years of geologic pressure. The gizmo he has looks like it was made from spare parts in Dr. Frankenstein's laboratory.

The film is blessed with two villains, industrialist Matthew Boulton and rival scientist Porter Hall both of whom want to get their hands on that formula and profit off it in some way. One way that wasn't even considered was that very few diamonds are used as jewelry. The majority are industrial strength and used for things like oil drill bits. A way to manufacture those babies on the cheap would yield someone a lot of money.

John Barrymore plays the Scotland Yard inspector and by dint of his name is top billed over John Howard as Drummond. It's a sad come down for Barrymore who reminds me of J.D. Cannon as Chief Clifford in the McCloud series, the way Drummond constantly shows up the Yard. He also has a little bit of Perry White thrown in as he constantly is telling people 'don't call me inspector'.

The science is a bit bizarre and the plot has way too many holes in it. If you're expecting something as good as when Ronald Colman was Bulldog Drummond, you won't find it here.


Preview: Summary: This one has a trained penguin

This is the twelfth Bulldog Drummond film, the third starring John Howard as Drummond, and the second based on Sapper's novel 'The Third Round' (the first version of which was the silent film of 1925 'Bulldog Drummond's Third Round' starring Jack Buchanan, of which one print is said to survive in an archive). This one is tauter and more dramatic than most because it was edited by Ed Dymtryk. John Hogan also did a fine job of directing, with many dramatic angles and more closeups than were seen in the previous Drummond film by another director. There is interesting second unit material of London. The budget for this film was fairly ambitious, more so than in later efforts. Louise Campbell and Nydia Westman, the two irritating women, are kept under control and their roles minimized, to my great relief, and to the improvement of the drama. The lead billing once again is given to John Barrymore, who plays the Commissioner, but in this film, he acts up a storm and has many strong scenes, unlike the previous offering, 'Bulldog Drummond's Revenge', in which he sleep-walked through the story. So in this one, he really earned his fee for a change. The wonderful character actress Zeffie Tilbury here plays an amusing housekeeper who puts policemen in their place with the best East End cockney applomb, and takes no nonsense. Hogan, having just directed her in 'Scandal Street' (1938), evidently was responsible for introducing Elizabeth Patterson to the series, as a hysterical Aunt Blanche. Porter Hall puts in another of his villainous appearances, to excellent effect. (Villains are always so much more menacing when they speak quietly, as he does.) There are some amazing laboratory scenes in this film, reminiscent of Tesla, with surging electric currents and so forth, and one half expects a Frankenstein monster to appear. The story is about the manufacture of artificial diamonds, of the need to protect the diamond industry and, as Barrymore admits, to protect the Empire, from the threat of being able to make diamonds 'become as cheap as pebbles' and 'to be larger than the crown jewels'. Naturally, there is scope for villains galore with such a scenario. There is lots of action, plenty of train, car and motorbike chases, climbing up walls, and in this one, E. E. Clive as Tenny the gentleman's gentleman has the most energetic and active of all his Drummond roles, and hijacks a truck at gunpoint, hanging upside down from the roof. But most ingenious of all is the cute trained penguin who has more scenes than Louise Campbell and is a finer bird. Watch him hop and squawk, dear little thing. He also discovers a corpse under the table, which was a fine feathered deed worthy of this fast-moving film, which does not disappoint any stout Drummondonian.


An MGM PETE SMITH Short Subject.

A very silly housewife receives help with her dinner MENU - and a cure for her hubby's upset tummy - when a chef magically arrives in her kitchen.

This fanciful little film is an enjoyable bit of early Technicolor fluff. The practical demonstrations, mixed up with the gentle humor, serve up a most pleasing result - almost as appetizing as the roast duck & baked apples. Movie mavens will recognize Franklin Pangborn as the dyspeptic husband, Una Merkel as his featherbrained wife, and Luis Alberni as the remarkable chef, all uncredited.

Off-the-wall narrator Pete Smith would produce a reworked version of this story - with Oscar winning results - four years later in PENNY WISDOM (1937).

Often overlooked or neglected today, the one and two-reel short subjects were useful to the Studios as important training grounds for new or burgeoning talents, both in front & behind the camera. The dynamics for creating a successful short subject was completely different from that of a feature length film, something akin to writing a topnotch short story rather than a novel. Economical to produce in terms of both budget & schedule and capable of portraying a wide range of material, short subjects were the perfect complement to the Studios' feature films.


I love these little "one reel wonders" that TCM throws in at the end of their regularly scheduled movies as filler till the next movie comes on. I caught this one at the end of Sunrise, during TCM's 31 Days of Oscar. Seems this little 1933 one-reeler was nominated for Best Short Subject.

It's very amusing. An early technicolor about a man with indigestion, thanks to a wife who's a klutzenheimer in the kitchen. Una Merkel plays the dippy wife -- she utters about 3 words but is told by the unseen narrator that he's the only one allowed to talk! The narrator acts as an omnipotent overseer, putting broken eggs and spilled condiments back together again by the magic of reverse-action filming. He also brings in a chef in a puff of smoke, to come to the housewife's rescue. We are then treated to a mini-cooking show, with instructions on how to prepare stuffed duck and baked apples. It's quite droll, with the narrator getting off such funny zingers as:

"Cook the stuffing for 15 minutes, for that perfect taste that you love to burp up later."

"Now clutch the apple firmly so it will realize the futility of any resistance."

Very funny and amusing. Too bad there's no way to actually know when this will be on again. I don't think TCM lists its one-reel wonders in its programming guide, which is too bad. Well, if you run across "The Menu" at the end of your regularly scheduled program, be sure to stick around and watch it. I think you'll enjoy it!


Menu---The Burp of a Nation---8/10.

This little ditty shows up occasionally on TCM, so you might be lucky, as I was, to accidentally run across it in the ending minutes of a Tivo recording of a classic movie. The running time states that it is 10 minutes in length, but it seems much shorter than that.

The short centers on a housewife and her feeble attempts at cooking. Her kitchen is in a shambles; everything she touches produces a sound effect and a wise crack from an omnipotent narrator (Pete Smith). Away from home, the husband sits in his office worrying about what his wife will be concocting in the kitchen for his consumption when he gets home. Meanwhile, at the office, his belly is aching, so he is never far from his bicarbonate of soda, which he keeps in his jacket pocket.

The narrator keeps everything moving along very nicely as he throws in one liners, puns and wry observations of the hapless couple. The narrator also punctuates the proceedings by not only dropping in many appropriate sound effects, but also by bringing to life a chef to manage the wife's dinner arrangements. In a puff of smoke the chef enters into the kitchen and proceeds to teach the wife how to stuff a duck and bake some apples.

When the husband comes home, the chef has disappeared and so has the husband's bicarbonate. The husband has a meal fit for a king, but he'll only be king for a day, I don't think this wife could make a bowl of cereal.

After watching this short, I thought it was made sometime during the 1940's, but was completely shocked to see (while on IMDb) a release date of 1933. I didn't know they used color as early as that.

Very short, very tasty and easily digestible. 8/10.

Clark Richards


First off; I can understand why people would dislike this movie; The characters are all portrayed in an extremely stereotypical way, the acting is considerably over the top most of the time, the story is rather cheesy and not very believable - I mean which gay couple would (or COULD) transform their eccentric home into a monastery-like environment in 24 hours to pretend to be a cultured family to impress the son's fiancée's parents?

...Yet I couldn't stop laughing all the way through, even after the 10th time. Why? It's BECAUSE the characters are so stereotypical, it's BECAUSE the acting is over the top, it's BECAUSE the whole thing is so unbelievable that it makes it scintillating to behold. Even though the characters are stereotypical, the script has obviously been written by someone who doesn't intend to contribute to the stereotypical view of the gay drag community, but who rather wanted to create characters that are lovable while at the same time shouting "don't take us seriously".

This isn't a movie portraying life in the gay society; and everyone who expects realistic (and hence probably rather unfunny) portrayal of such a theme is better off NOT watching a comedy featuring gays (don't most comedies thrive on making the stereotype seem funny?) It may not be politically correct all the way, but hey; society's too hung up on all this political correctness as it is,. The characters in this movie were lovable, perhaps BECAUSE they were stereotypical depictions. However they're brought to life so well by the actors playing them that it doesn't make you shake your head in frustration over yet ANOTHER movie portraying stereotypes, but rather makes you shake your head in laughter over the deadpan things they say and do, which are so obviously unreal at times that anyone who thinks this movie will promote a false picture of the gay community needs a reality check.

The script is amazing, and even though it may really be too over the top once in a while, it doesn't distract from the overall picture. The story isn't much; the focus on details is what makes this movie funny. Little gestures, frowns, face expressions and little subtleties make this movie one of the best comedies I have ever watched, and probably one of the best comedies I will ever be fortunate enough to see in my entire life. Contrary to what it may seem like at first sight, the humor is overly refined without being intellectual, instead of jumping in your face all the time.

What's more, the cast is great. Both Robin Williams and Nathan Lane are very fine comedians who have the touch it takes to play a role like this one. They make over-the-top stereotypes actually FUNNY, instead of just laughable.

And yes, I HAVE seen the original movie, not all too long ago actually, and I have to say the remake is twenty to the power of 99 times better than the original. I barely laughed, and the original version was in my eyes an utterly forgettable movie. And that coming from a person who usually hates remakes.

This movie gives the original "Birdcage" a fresh new shine and transports the story into the 90's. Well made, on all accounts, I can't think of a single criticism!


"The Birdcage" is a hilarious movie about a happily "married" gay couple, forced to play straight for the marriage for Armond's son and his conservative in-laws. Even though it is a bit stereotypical, it was played with charm and energy and is absolutely irresistible. I really enjoyed "The Birdcage" because it had a lot of serious issues, yet managed to turn into a fun joke. We take the politic stand on gay marriages so seriously, that I think this was needed just for a good laugh at it.

Nathan Lane and Robin Williams, what terrific performances! Again, I know it was stereotypical, but I have a couple friends that do actually act like that. So, I was more than willing to go with it. I loved the whole Nathan being the Mom dinner scene. It was just too hard not to laugh. I am little surprised by the rating of 6.5. I think people should see this film and just have a good time with it. Trust me, it's just a fun movie and it's not offensive in any way.

10/10


Way over the top, but utterly and completely hilarious just the same American remake of the popular 1978 French film/play "La Cage Aux Folles" about a gay nightclub owner and his flamboyant drag-queen lover (played by Robin Williams and Nathan Lane, two actors who I might say look like they were born to each be the comedic halves that equal one fall-down hilarious whole) who in an attempt to please and hopefully fool the conservative parents (played by Gene Hackman and Diane Wiest) of Williams' biological son's (from what is obviously a previous liaison with a woman) fiancé, pretend for one evening to be a straight married couple, a la Williams is the husband and Lane is dressed up as the wife, with as it is blatantly apparent disastrous results! Absolutely nothing in this film is subtle I'll admit, and almost all of the characters here are written to be little more than hokey caricature's of nearly every gay stereotype going! However though, regardless of all that "The Birdcage" still winds up hitting the nail square on the head in terms of delivering to it's audience some astounding energy, superb camp-value and knee-slappingly hilarious jokes/one-liners that are all topped by a nearly uncanny chemistry between the actors. Overall, if you can manage to get past some of the so-called "Hollywood Clichés" and cheap shots made at the kinds of people/life-styles featured here that are deemed offensive by some, and just watch this great flick for the uproarious and seemingly light-hearted romp that it was initially intended to be. Then ultimately you will be justly rewarded by film's end because this is one of the few, and I do mean few, American remakes (and a comedy no less) that is worth watching time after time! (***** out of *****)


Though nothing can beat "La Cage aux Folles," the film on which this American version is based, I still found "The Birdcage" delightful fun and hilarious at times, thanks to the comic geniuses of Robin Williams and Nathan Lane. Lane is the dramatic Albert, an over the top drag queen who has lived for years with Robin Williams, Armand, the owner of The Birdcage, where Albert performs. Armand once had a liaison with a woman, which produced a son, Val, who now wants to be married to the daughter of a conservative politician. In order for that to occur, Armand has to become butch, all gay art work, etc., needs to exit the apartment - and Albert must disappear for a few days.

Williams is hilarious - my two favorite scenes are his rehearsal with Albert and a young man appearing with him on stage, and the scene where he coaches Armand on being macho - priceless. Nathan Lane's shtick is familiar to me, as I've seen him in "The Producers" and "The Odd Couple" - he's a riot as the insecure, jealous, easily hurt Albert.

The role of Val is problematic, because how does one keep him from looking like a complete bastard as he shuts out Armand, who raised him. But Dan Futterman and Calista Flockhart as Barbara make a lovely young couple. Gene Hackman and Dianne Wiest are very funny as Barbara's befuddled parents.

It's been a long time since I've seen the French "La Cage aux Folles," and I saw the musical on Broadway as well. The French is superior to any version. The musical is quite poignant and emphasizes its statement in the song, "I Am Who I Am." The joy of the French film is that the actors playing the lovers, Ugo Tognazzi and Michel Serrault, play their roles very seriously, and the humor and poignancy come out of the situation and the outrageousness of the Armand character (Albin/Zaza in the French). In "The Birdcage," it's played for comedy all the way. That's okay. You'll still enjoy it. But see the original.


THE BIRDCAGE is the hysterically entertaining Americanized version of the French classic LA CAGE AUX FOLLES. In this version Robin Williams plays the gay owner of a Florida nightclub who learns his straight son (Dan Futterman) is coming home and is engaged to be married. Williams learns from his son that his fiancée's parents (Gene Hackman, Dianne Wiest) are straight-laced and ultra-conservative and will not be comfortable meeting his gay father or his even more flamboyant lover (Nathan Lane) and suggests Williams send Lane out of town while Hackman and Wiest are in town. Instead, Lane puts on his best drag and meets the parents as Williams' wife in one of the most hilarious dinner party scenes ever filmed. This film is chock full of sparkling dialogue and sharp performances. I also found it rather refreshing to see Robin Williams playing straight man to Lane, who along with Hank Azaria as their housekeeper, practically steal the film from everyone else in one of the most entertaining comedies of the 90's. And the sight of Gene Hackman in drag is something everyone must experience.


This movie is one of the best. Robin Williams and Nathan Lane are phenomenal and hilarious, but the best performance throughout the film is by Hank Azaria, as Agador, the adorable flaming butler. My favorite scene is when both families are sitting together eating dinner. I don't want to give anything away, but wow I was in tears. Gene Hackman is extremely funny as a conservative senator. This film is colorful, unique and will keep an audience roaring with laughter. Yes, the movie follows some typical stereo types among a gay male couple, however, is not offensive in anyway, shape or form. I think this is such a cute film, and if you haven't seen it, or if you happen to be in the mood for a laugh out loud movie rent The Birdcage.

My Rating: 9/10


OH.. my GOd! What a wonderful story, what a comedy.. I have no words to describe what I felt when I watched this. You see Robin Williams in this whole new character , he has never played this kind of role before.. well it suits him, don't you think? HE did a pretty good job with Armand Goldman, but what about his partner.. Nathan Lane, well what about him? He played perfectly his SHE.. Albert slash Starina Goldman slash Coleman role. They both do "fosse,fosse,fosse.. Martha Graham.. Martha Graham.. MADONNA ..MADONNA! Who else could be a "mother", a "Wife" and "just a guy" if not Nathan Lane, his shrieking is so funny, he is a true woman in this picture. I can say nothing more about the "Birdcage", you better watch it and find out the rest yourself..


I saw "The Birdcage" because I'd already seen "La Cage aux Folles." And I thought this one was a great remake, if not better. Robin Williams and Nathan Lane give hilarious performances as the lead couple. I haven't seen "La Cage" in ages, but there were tidbits in "The Birdcage" that I remembered from the original. Of all American remakes of French movies, this is by far my favorite!


It's hard to imagine saying this about an outrageous comedy, but Robin Williams - who made his career (at least the early part of it) by doing outrageous comedy (and the more outrageous the better) is completely, totally and absolutely outshone in "The Bird Cage" by Nathan Lane. That's not a criticism of Williams. He was fine, but Lane was simply over the top funny as the very feminine drag queen Albert, the gay lover/spouse of Armand (Williams). Armand and Albert have a son they've raised (Val, played by Dan Futterman) and he's about to get married to Barbara (Calista Flockhart). The catch? Barbara's father is the extremely conservative Senator Kevin Keeler (Gene Hackman) and he'll be none too pleased by the family his daughter is marrying in to.

You'll laugh pretty much the whole way through at Lane, and it isn't just Lane. At times, Williams is playing the second or even third banana by the end of the movie. There's Albert and Armand's "maid" Agador Spartacus (Hank Azaria) who's almost as funny as Lane, and (while I don't want to give too much away) when you catch a glimpse of Hackman in drag near the end of the movie you'll be in stitches.

It's great fun, burdened a little bit by an unnecessary decision to have Keeler involved in a political scandal. The whole movie would have worked quite well without that particular subplot. Still, this is a very funny movie. turn to it whenever you need a laugh. 8/10


I cannot believe how hilarious this movie turned out. It is one of the funniest movies I've ever seen. I can barely contain myself from bursting into laughter at just the thought of it. The acting is superb, the direction impeccable, in fact the entire production is tres magnifique! I never had so much fun watching a movie. Each and every character is endearing and you get the feeling that each actor was born for exactly that role. I'm surprised there were no academy award nominations for Nathan Lane, Gene Hackman, Robin Williams and especially Hank Azaria, that entertainer-extraordinary wannabe, the "Goldman's faithful houseman", LOL...I am laughing as I write this review, you must see it to appreciate it.....10 of 10 EXCELLENT!


One of the joys of watching good performers is seeing them fall so deeply into their role that when their character is asked to change, the change is so uncomfortable it either creates drama or comedy. In this case, we have comedic gold. Robin Williams headlines but Nathan Lane is the star of this filled festival of frolicing, where everybody throws in their characters worth and has the audience on the floor laughing.

Robin Williams and Nathan Lane play two gay Jewish lovers in Florida who own a drag club called The Birdcage. William's straight son is going to get married to the daughter of a Rightest Senator from Ohio. Williams and Lane decide to try to play it straight for a night, which means turning everything in their comfortable world upside down and inside out to pull it all together.

The writing is simply excellent, great dialog and very quotable. Even if the movie itself ended up terribly, it would have had good camp value regardless. However, the movie itself is supported strongly by the fantastic work of the acting, especially Lane because he is able to not only convince the audience about his character, but have his character try and act as well, thus creating multiple levels of personality hard to come to terms with inside of just one person. Williams does well too, but probably the best counterpart to Lane is Hank Azaria in a hilariously gay role and Gene Hackman and Dianne Wiest as the conservative parents. They actually make the conservatism the movie pokes at believable while not becoming too mocking or too caricaturistic.

All in all, it's a good time, and great fun for the whole (openminded) family.

--PolarisDiB


This is a funny, funny story about a gay couple pretending to be a straight couple to impress the family of the son's fiancée. There are moral lessons in this comedy to live and let live and to judge people on their character, not their sexual orientation.

My girlfriend and I watched this movie together and we both howled with laughter. We still treasure this movie and watch it again and again.

We had not seen either the original play or movie so this was a standalone viewing. It was just terrific.

Williams and Lane are perfect as the gay couple. The look on Williams' face when Lane comes into the house when the visitors are there is priceless. Williams is a great straight guy (pun intended) for Lane's antics.

I judge this movie on the amount of laughs it gave me and that has to be a "10." Gene Hackman is perfect, as usual, as a moralizing, hypocritical Senator.


What an absolutely hilarious movie! Everyone gave an Oscar winning performance. The facial expressions and body gestures were unbelievably funny. I laughed harder than when I saw "Young Frankenstein" for the first time years ago. I never thought I'd see another movie that would literally have me laughing so hard that tears were running down my cheek. The fact that Robin Williams and Gene Hackman were cast seemed a bit strange to me when I first saw the names of the cast, but they were perfect for the characters they portrayed. One of the most classic examples of the wit and genius performed in this film was when Diane Wiest looks at Gene Hackman when he's saying what a fine "lady" Nathan Lane is, and he's playing a Republican Senator! I would have given the writer and all the actors an Academy for this picture. Hopefully, people will see it for what it is...pure comedic genius at work! Just relax and have fun with it. Don't try to read anything into it that you may think was NOT intentional because it was ALL intentional with extremely dramatic performances, and you know that the cast had a great time making it.You can even see Robin Williams starting to crack up when his "male maid" (Agador) is trying to toss the shrimp into his stew concoction! I'm still waiting for another classic like this one. During these trying days we all need a good laugh. WE ARE FAMILY!!!!


This movie is hilarious. Every single time I watch I laugh. I think that the acting is terrific and wonderfully over the top. That is the point of the movie, for the characters to be way over the top. My personal favorite is Agador played brilliantly by Hank Azaria. Every single time I see Agador I just my head off. Albert comes in an extremely close second, he is very funny and he makes a terrific women in drag. Nathan Lane is a genius! The chemistry between all the characters is wonderful. And for the record I have a lot of gay friends and a gay relative and none of them find this movie offensive in the least. They all think it is funny too.


In thinking through this movie, I struggled to recall one honest character. I believe it is Barbara's mother. She is straightforward to the point of naiveté. The other assorted crew are great though. I mean, if we were all like (I can't remember her name, she is so innocuous) well, then, we wouldn't have a movie or any color to the world, would we?

The most dishonest of the lot is Armand. Watch the cigarette in his first scene with Albert in drag. Williams is obviously using it to symbolize that he is, in fact, hiding something from his life-partner, and that "something" is Rodrigo- note his eyes when he communicates with the waiter in the restaurant scene. I mention this because The Birdcage is about deceit, some funny, some not. It is about people trying to be what they aren't to please someone else and of course failing. Along the way, this film is a lot of fun. It is a sympathetic look at a life style most of us wouldn't otherwise see, and that's worth a lot.

This is a great ensemble. Good actors, an excellent script, an interesting premise. A very very good film.

But here's my question, after all is said and done, why does Armand tell Katherine at the end that "we are very proud of him" in reference to Val? While I understand Val's motives, why would a parent be proud of dishonesty, of urging denial of who one is, of plain stupidity in expecting (no matter the outcome of one evening) that his father in law could be eternally fooled? Yes, I know, I know. It's all plot and not real, but still, I would have scratched that line, as there is no supporting evidence that Val- the center of this tornado- is anything but selfish.

That said, I like this film.


What makes this movie so wonderful is how good a job Robin Williams and Nathan Lane do as portraying loving, dedicated parents. Aside from the amazing soundtrack and the fun antics, it is their sheer goodness as human beings that stays in your head for a long time.

A fun thing to do is compare this movie to La Cage Aux Folles and see how different characters are interpreted differently. The son in the Birdcage is a much more complex character than the one in La Cage, and a lot of the movie is about him accepting his identity. The daughter, on the other hand, is much more of a three dimensional character in La Cage.

The other nice thing about this movie is that unlike in the original, you end up liking the girls parents to some extent. They actually do have a lot in common with the heroes. That isn't true in La Cage, where the girl's father seems to be almost sinister


The Birdcage is so hilarious! Oh my goodness gracious, this movie just really leaves you gasping for breath because you can't stop laughing.

Past the "Fosse, Fossees" and "John Wayne imitations", this movie can be seen in a deeper level. It addresses the controversial topic of homosexuality and how people who are gay or lesbian are just like any other people. Nathan Lane plays the part of a woman so well that I still find myself forgetting that SHE is a HE.

The chemistry and interaction of the characters was played out so nice that the main message is clear. Amidst the sound of a nightclub, the first words the audience hears is "We are family..." This movie reminds people that no family is perfect.It shows the similarities between the contrasting serious and traditional family versus the lively, unorthodox family. Each family had its peculiarities and it shows the reality of family life. It is the love and genuine care for each other that makes up a family.


I've watched this movie countless times and never get bored. It provides sheer entertainment and some of the best one-liners I've heard in a movie. It is equal opportunity in its derogatory remarks and racism, and that's part of the charm. People get too worked up over stereotypes and "being offended" but they shouldn't -- this is a movie, not a political commentary. The actors have done a superb job of creating humour out of an awkward situation -- two men who happen to be gay, live together, own a business and must "play it straight" for the benefit of their son's in-laws.

I think I understand why the critical review has been mediocre -- it's likely because critics keep comparing 'The Birdcage' with the original 'La Cage Aux Folles'. I wish critics would rate a movie for what it is, and not for what it compares to. 'The Birdcage' as a stand-alone movie is witty, funny, silly, and entertaining. And that's what makes it so enjoyable! It's one of my favourite comedies and I can watch it over and over again.


It's a situation comedy reminiscent of Charley's Aunt and equally as funny. In both scripts a man impersonates a woman in order to reach a satisfactory conclusion to an important event. The results are side-splitting. Nathan Lane has the plum part as the flamboyant petulant drag queen (Albert) while Robin Williams as his partner Armand manages to maintain some credulity in otherwise outrageous and complicated situations. The story bounces along at a nice speed. but tends to sag when Armand meets his ex-wife in her office and they do a little song and dance routine. I didn't see much point in that. Of course the story climaxes in the dinner party scene when the two families come together in the apartment above the Birdcage Night Club. Ostensibly all erotic statues, paintings. carvings and other paraphernalia have been removed prior to dinner to create the right impression, but somehow or other the porcelain soup bowls decorated with men in erotic poses seem to have been overlooked and the patterns are quickly covered over in a frantic serving of chowder. The scene in which everybody joins in singing "I could have danced all night" is a high spot and their friend who acts as the butler for the night has a lovely comedy role as he stumbles about because he is not used to wearing shoes. Earlier in the film Armand tries to teach Albert how to sit, walk and act like a man. It's an hilarious situation....an impossibility for Albert who is so steeped in his effeminate mannerisms. All in all an enjoyable presentation, but I have the feeling the original French version which I saw many years ago had more excitement in it and the farcical situations much more humorous.


This is Rye Seronie with my review of The Bird Cage

This movie was great in all aspects except for the overdone, way to stereotypical Nathan Lane. He opened the book of Gay Stereotypes and used every single one of them. Although I have to admit he did do wonderful in his "Teach me" scene as well as when he portrayed val's mother. Val's mother, christine beranski, The senators wife and val's fiance all performed wonderfully. I recommend this movie for a good laugh/pick me up.

Ratings

PLOT: 9/10 (semi-believable)

COSTUMES: No Comment

ACTING: 9/10 (Nathan Lane overdid it a little)

DIRECTION: 10/10 (The movie wasnt jumpy and the plot flowed together nicely)

CASTING: 10/10 (They couldnt have picked a better group of people to play in this film)

OVERALL: 9.5/10 (Great movie for a good laugh, I bought it and use it as a good pick me up)

This has been a review from the sweet and wonderfully crabby Rye Seronie. (a.k.a. - Mike Elmore)


I find this move to be very short on charm, long on forced acting, short on authenticity, boringly edited, and low on energy. Robin Williams couldn't act any less gay than his stilted quasi-macho portrayal (emphasizing only one aspect of that character to the complete detriment of the other). Nathan Lane certainly has his fey acting abilities in tact, but he has no one to play against with Williams being as wooden as that living room cross. The other actors play caricatures of their roles in the same silly, stilted and inauthentic way as Williams. Tedious, with only a couple of truly funny moments. The lovely costuming and sets are totally wasted on this unemotionally nuanced affair. This movie's main purpose is to highlight why the 1978 La Cage version was so far more authentic and superior in every possible way.


Robin Williams and Nathan Lane have great "chemistry" as middle aged gay couple faced with a biggie: Their 20 year old son wants to get married and needs his "parents" to put on a phony pretense for the ultra-conservative in-laws coming for a short-notice visit. Gene Hackman is fantastic as the right wing politician desperate to escape a career threatening scandal. Just to see him in drag at the end is worth the price for this DVD.

Both the opening scene and the final scene are priceless. Inbetween you'll find a big barrel of laughs. This is a very funny film, and despite the "controversial" subject-matter, a family movie! -- The underlying message that a "non-traditional family" can be more loving and nurturing than a dysfunctional "traditional family" is a bit buried under all of the laughs. Though dealt with through great comedy, it is a serious matter to ponder. It makes us rethink what exactly we mean by "family values".


I gave this a ten in a futile attempt to up the average.

It would be a shame if a 6.5 score put people off watching this film, I would rate it 7-8 quite happily. It is one of the few films released over the last few years that gives me belly laughs throughout, and after repeat viewings.

Nathan Lane is especially good, and after this film I became a big fan.

Perhaps the homosexual themes put people off. Yes, the characters are stereotypes, and it doesn't try to make many serious points, but I'd like to think that the open minded are in for an undervalued treat.

How do I feel about the rating? I don't know, betrayed, bewildered...


I was taken back the first moments of the movie. I do not agree with this type of family arrangement. However, Robin Williams and Nathan Lane are such fantastic actors and comedians, I couldn't help but "get into" this movie. The movie has no boring moments. It is all about the antics of the gay couple "trying" to come up with a plan to appear "straight" to a family with a totally different agenda.

I have watched this movie numerous times. I have the video tape and the DVD. Every time it appears on television, I have to watch. Just when I think my family gets a little too crazy, I always have "The Birdcage" to assure me all is well.

I am a registered nurse and currently completing my Bachelor's Degree in Nursing. I have chosen this movie to write a research paper about families. After I complete the paper, I will post another comment.


Since I haven't seen the classic that came before this, I'm unable to compare it, or be biased by it.

Robin Williams movies are always a pleasure to see. But, the over the top script for this one is hysterical. I'd imagine one has to be somewhat open minded to enjoy it. ;) Having many gay friends and having gone to many a party thrown by them, I can see it all taking place. And, the drama caused by a very feminine man playing a very straight woman in order to avoid coming out of the closet is too funny. That dinner scene is an absolute riot.

The sad thing about it is knowing that so many have to hide their sexuality for fear of being ostracized. But, this puts such a humorous spin on things. It must have been a really fun movie to produce and/or act in. Rent it when you are in need of a laugh! :)


......then.......it became an Italo-French movie "Le Cage aux Follie" in 1978 with Ugo Tognazzi and Michel Serrault , written by French and Italian script writers (Edouardo Molinaro and Marcello Danon), .......but to see in 1997 a book in a English Bookstore of the American version of the film written by two Americans , made me wonder if

copyright laws had been respected ??? It was originally written by a French playwriter way back in the late 1960's..............no mention of him at all,........ even though the American version(Birdcage) and the Italo-French version are identical even in the dialogue ! It's all right to make remakes of European films(which are always bad copies), but at least the rights of the original authors should be respected !

Comment on this version : a good film, but with a script like that, it couldn't go wrong !!!

 Cheers (from a European spoilsporter),

 Kristen


Hollywood suits should be forced to see STRICTLY BACKGROUND to understand the honor, pathos and love of craft as evidenced by the background players featured in this film.The film has humor, desperation and hope.You will grow close to these individuals through their honesty and determination.In many ways the film mirrors life. You try to find something that fits you and you do your best. But your fate is in the hands of the movie gods. They hire and fire and if you're lucky they promote you.This film is for everyone. You do not have to be a movie fan to enjoy the stories the film unfolds. As someone who has been an extra, director and producer I highly recommend STRICTLY BACKGROUND.


I just left a screening of Strictly Background at the New Hampshire Film Expo. This is one of the most sincere and touching documentaries I've seen in a long time. The basic premise carries us to Hollywood and into the lives of Background Artists, or extras to us lay people. Extras are the truly unsung heroes of the movie business. Without background players, we wouldn't have movies. It's a really simple film that gives an honest glimpse of the life these folks live. Some do it for fun, some do it to break into the "Business," some do it for a few extra bucks. All the individuals interviewed have a true love of making movies, even if it's as set dressing. As the movie progresses it's informative of the movie making process, but at the same time it's emotional in the sense that we are following the hopes and dreams of all these extras. Some make it, some don't. One gentleman lives in a rented storage unit for $100 a month. We go to casting calls, jobs and "specs", where an extra goes to a set in the hopes they might be needed that day. By the end of the movie I realized I was rooting for all of them to get that next job. The director did a great job of drawing us into these lives and the emotional roller-coaster that goes along with this kind of work. Not an easy task in our cynical society. It's funny, interesting and at times heartbreaking. I highly recommend this film to any kind of cinema fan as well as anyone who is curious about the real Hollywood.


I saw this at the Waterfront Film Festival in Saugatuck, Michigan.

Interesting documentary about people that make a career out of being movie extras. It followed ten people around and showed how they handle being another face in the movie crowd. I really enjoyed this film because I'm interested in going into the film business and it would be fun to be an extra in at least one film.

It was great seeing how dedicated some of these people are. The documentary covered many of the basics about being an extra. How to get cast in a film, how to dress, how to act around the big stars, and many other things. I also loved how they showed the film clips and pointed out where the stars of the documentary were.

This movie will be really helpful to anyone that wants to travel out west and go into the movies.


This was one of my favorite films at the Santa Fe Film Festival. Director Connell presents us with a broad cast of dreamers and misfits. His sympathetic look at these ambitious and under-appreciated performers is moving and genuine.

As a person who has been knocking at Hollywood's doors for years I found myself a little frustrated by the film -- are my dreams folly? -- but ultimately the message of the film has nothing to do with the sometimes ridiculous ambitions of its struggling protagonists but more with the importance of pursuing a dream, come what may.

I was encouraged once to find out what I was crazy about and pursue it like a madman. Strictly Background shows us a group of die-hards who are doing just that - and their determination is inspiring.

The movie will also change the way you watch movies. After watching the film it takes a long time to watch a movie without noticing the background -- is that a good thing? Sure, there are no parts that do not contribute to the whole.


This fun, endearing film documents the trials, tribulations, and triumphs of a number of Hollywood's veteran "extras". You really get to know and love these people, and if at first, you wondered why anyone would put themselves through the aggravation of all those cattle calls and cold calls, and useless callbacks, by the end of the movie, you realize the love that these extras have for the movie-making process. They'll do anything to be a part of it, however small, brief, or fleeting. Director, Jason Connell, really captures the moments. He's there for the disappointments and the heroic moments of these actorsyes, the movie proves that even background players are truly actors. His use of clips from the feature films these extras have performed in is illuminating and hilarious. After spending time with the real characters in Strictly Background, you'll want to know more about their lives and what happened after the cameras stopped rolling. Do I hear a sequel or a TV show coming Jason?


"Strictly Background" is a great film! Two thumbs way up! There is a reason it has won so many awards and been featured at so many festivals. Director, Jason Connell does a good job of picking interesting characters to follow and then keeps the film moving. The music, editing and special effects also add to the momentum! It really sheds light on the "extras" industry and shows the ups and downs of being in it. You really feel for these guys! Finally these extras get to be the stars in this film. Bravo! It's all around fun! It's a must see! Can't wait to see what Connell has up his sleeve for his next project. He's one to keep an eye on!


Here's another film in which I totally go against the critics - both professional and on this board, who take themselves too seriously at times. They hated this sequel to "The Blues Brothers," but I enjoyed it very much. They need to chill a bit and realize the purpose of this film: simply a tribute to the music.

How could any fan of "blues," not like this? I mean, look at all the great performers in this film and how much better does it get to have all of them join in for a couple of jam sessions at the end? The movie sports a "Who's Who" of modern-day blues musicians and singers and also is directed by John Landis, who has directed some of the most entertaining films of the last 25 years.

Plus, it was simply a funny movie with two funny guys - Dan Akyroyd and John Goodman - and a really neat-looking little kid in J. Evan Bonifant who really makes me laugh. Just looking at this 10-year-old dancing is his Blues Brothers outfit alone is worth a number of laughs. Some of the characters in here are so outrageous they would be tough to describe. The car chases, the dances and clothing and over-the-top story all add up to two hours of lamed-brained fun. No, this isn't Shakespeare and it wasn't mean to be. It's a much nicer-edged movie than the first Blues Brothers, too. Unfortunately, too many people want "edgy" material all the time .

Not only are the characters colorful, so is the cinematography, making it both a visual and audio treat. So....just look at it as a blue concert with laughs, and, hopefully, you'll enjoy it.


Contrary to popular opinion, this is not a sequel. It is supposed to be a tribute to the original. People who bash this movie without reading Aykroyd's interviews are ignorant to the intent here. This movie was originally to be a sequel back in 1981 just before Belushi died. When that happened, the idea for another adventure fell away. But after almost two decades, Aykroyd wanted to do something to revisit the classic film and pay homage to his friend and co-star Belushi, so he assembled this "Concert Movie", which is supposed to be all about THE MUSIC, not the story. The only reason a story was put in was to keep it moving from musical number to musical number, because everyone knows that straight concert films are pretty boring, even if you really like the performer(s). So here it is, for the true Blues Brothers fans to enjoy. P.S.-And if your problem with the plot was some of the cartoony style actions that occur (Cabel being pulled heavenward and his clothes magically "changing", et cetera), remember that the original had the same things. In the first one the entire band's clothing "magically" changes for a concert, but if you know that this is merely a representation of the character's psychological state and not a literal change, then the film works much better. The same idea works for the much-maligned "zombie" sequence near the end at Queen Mousette's mansion. Also, people complain about the Bluesmobile in this film being able to drive underwater. Well, in the first film the car flew, performed flips, and was nearly indestructible. In fact, if you watch the DVD of the first film, you find in the deleted scenes and "Making-of" section that the Bluesmobile is supposed to be "magic", because it was parked each night inside a power transformer. How is that for cheesiness on the first film? So that also explains Elwood's ability to smuggle himself in the dash of the car in this one, and the car being able to crash land from a fiery loop-de-loop at the fairgrounds. Even though I wish this film could have been a little edgier and darker in tone like the original, I do find its bold and effective use of color to be magnificent and fascinating. Perhaps this film has a little more depth than people expect, so they incorrectly perceive it to be a lackluster and shallow mindnumbing entertainment. I know better ....... Remove the stars in the address to e-mail me.


The only way this film can not be awe inspiring is if you watch it on a 10" black and white TV with a 4 watt sound system. Maybe that's a bit extreme, but I watched this on a 70" projection screen and 7.2 pristine and precise surround sound. I have seen this film at least 20 times and get the same pleasure from it each time. Aretha Franklin's voice and the musical abilities of almost the entire cast would carry any film, but this one doesn't need it. The story might not be completely developed (euphemism) but the Russian mobsters and GI Joes scenes are gutbustingly funny. Also, for anyone who has ever listened to "modern" music and wondered where the world was going to, Dan Akroyd's motivational speech is something to behold. Although I never expected to say this, because I'm a non-religious person, the gospel choir's rendition of "John the Revelator" sends shivers down your spine. I love this film, and would recommend it to anyone who likes good music.


Who cares about the plot? There wasn't one. The best thing about this movie is the top notch music and performers. Having all those folks in one film is incredible. A hundred years from now, this film would be a great case study of the R & B, Soul, and Blues of this time. And this tease.stay after the final credits, and you will be greatly rewarded. For this type of film I wish there was 2 scoring systems, one for the plot and the other for the music.


I found Ackroyd to be completely horrible. He looked more like Joe Friday than Elwood Blues. His Chicago accent was forced, the dialog moved through at a horribly slow pace. There was absolutely zero comic timing in this movie. Every scene in the movie, including the musical numbers, took too long-from Elwood talking to the Penguin, to the Car chases-long shots of police cars-to the car-under-the-water routing-to the 50 car pile up that seemed to take 10 minutes.

The musical numbers-the lifeblood of the original-were completely devoid of soul. Aretha Franklin's lip-syncing in particular was horrible. Matt Guitar Murphy looked more like a broken down old man than the body-builder he did in the original. Who could believe that the `Dunn and Cropper' radio talk show could possibly exist when they both seemed to be reading off of cue cards the entire movie?

The things that we funny and subtle in the first film-Elwood's parking ability, Jake's transformation at the hands of Reverend Cleophus, the miracle performance of the Bluesmobile, the new jobs of the former band members, were hackneyed and overdone in this film.

The lack of energy from the band, though, is the coffin nail for this film.

They perform with such little life that CGI animation of a skeleton riding a skeletal horse over the stage has to be imposed during their rendition of `Ghost Rider.' This comes from the same Blues Brothers band that made the theme to Rawhide sound like a hit twenty years ago.

Finally, the movie seems too bright and too clean. The original took place at night for the most part, and seemed dungier. This film is shiny and clean and that just doesn't feel right. The new Bluesmobile didn't even look right until Elwood littered up the dashboard with trash, and-get this-the cigarette lighter worked!

Other fatal flaws: dumbing-down Elwood Blues, inserting a kid into the cast, having Elwood eat something other than dry, white toast, the shaving-cream-ball schtick, no SCMODS, no lines like `Man, I haven't been pulled over in six months.' All the jokes hit you in the face-like they all have to be explained. Complete bomb.


I was a great fan of The Blues Brothers. When I was a kid, I used to get my dad to rent it every single week (in the days before you could buy it). I'd watch the car chases over and over again, and to this day can recite whole reams of dialogue. BB 2000, I thought, can't be as good, but it must be worth seeing.

How wrong I was.

I have tried, but I regret to say that I can find no redeeming features for this movie whatsoever. Not one. The dialogue which once was cool and sharp is stilted, forced, wholly unrecognisable as everyday English. The addition of the little kid and the black "forgotten" brother was pointless pandering to political correctness and family appeal. The car chases were overblown without being entertaining, and the plot was sadly not even laughable. I only kept watching after the first five minutes in the hope of one solitary laugh to give me something positive to write about. No chance. Even the usually excellent John Goodman was well below par, and this is to say nothing of the washed up Ackroyd.

Terribly photographed, crippled by being utterly devoid of plot, jokes, charisma and with even the music shoehorned in with no thought to aesthetics or taste, I can honestly say that BB2K ranks alongside root canal work as the least pleasant way one could ever spend time. This film took me two long hours closer to my death. I suggest you do not let it do the same to you.


Aside from everything, like Dan Aykroyd's dwindling ability to write a compelling story with good dialog, the ridiculous "say whaaa" parts, and Elwood's complete change in character, what grinds my gears the very most, is the poster, it was advertised "Aykroyd, Goodman: They're back in blue" completely disregarding the existence of the great John Belushi.....

plus the movie sucked major balls if not for the music, and the kid's dance skills, i couldn't watch it....

so very sad, and unfair!

OHHH SCHNICKELFRITZ!


The sequel to one of the best films ever made. And it stinks. The only good thing here the is music, so I recommend shopping around for the soundtrack.

Has anyone noticed that there is no "special edition" package of both Blues Brothers movies? That's right there isn't, because this movie doesn't deserve to be next to the immortal first film. It has none of the wit and snappy humor nor charm of the first. The jokes that are in the film are direct rip offs from the original.

There isn't even any car chasing. And the bad guys get turned into rats! BS! BS! BS! Just get the soundtrack and avoid this mess. 3/10

Rated PG-13: mild profanity


This movie is beyond bad. It is in that rarified nether-region where you can't really believe that what you are watching is really happening. I know, I know...it's just a movie, right? WRONG! The original Blues Brothers was an event, a symphony of chaos and destruction. This movie is a slap in the face to anyone who liked the original. You know you shouldn't make a sequel when most of your original cast looks like they have been embalmed. The original had John Lee Hooker, this piece of trash has Jonny Lang?! I'm sorry, but John Goodman, Joe Morton, and that little kid do not have a tenth of the talent that John Belushi and John Candy would have on their worst day. I can't believe Ackroyd lost all that weight for this (although he does look very good). Landis should have his film-makers license revoked. What's next...a sequel to Animal House?