The BBC made a TV series of this in 2003 and then decided to flog that horse again, so this was the result, an inferior feature film, very badly directed indeed by Justin Chadwick. The casting is terrible. The history is nonsense. (Anne Boleyn was the younger sister, not the older one as misrepresented in the novel, etc., etc.) Despite the terrible flaws in this misconceived monster of a project, some sterling performances do stand out. The most impressive is Ana Torent, the Spanish actress who has been a favourite of true cineastes since she played a 12-year-old in 'El Nido' (1980). She nearly steals the film, and if it were not for Scarlett Johansson being so good, she would have. Johansson has a natural dignity and an innate sensitivity to period (as she showed in 'Girl with a Pearl Earring'), so she and Ana Torent were perfectly capable of directing themselves and pulling off magnificent performances. Natalie Portman was a casting disaster. In the first part of the film, obviously wholly lacking in any meaningful direction, she tries to portray the flighty young Anne but does so as a 2008 girl, complete with the same knowing looks and arrogant insouciance you would expect to find in that wonderful satire 'Clueless' (1995), rather than in a period drama. In the latter part of the film, where at last she has a definable character and situation which she can at last figure out, she delivers some very powerful dramatic acting indeed, but always with too modern a touch. She was simply not made for the 16th century, sorry. Australian Eric Bana is totally and even more disastrously miscast as King Henry VIII. Since everyone knows that Henry was gingery in appearance and inclined to corpulence, why do we see this ludicrous version of him as a kind of brooding macho chap who has just stepped in from the set of 'Star Trek'? For more than half of the film, everybody addresses the king as 'Your Grace', whereas for the whole of English history, no such form of address was ever used for a king, but was only used for bishops, dukes, and duchesses. More than halfway through, unable to re-shoot their earlier scenes, they suddenly realize their mistake and start calling him 'Your Majesty', but it is too late. David Morissey is way, way over the top in his portrayal of the Duke of Norfolk. There was clearly no directorial control with this production at all. Was Chadwick sitting gagged and bound in a corner, one wonders? Even that old pro Kristin Scott-Thomas wobbles in her early scenes, unsure of what everybody is meant to be doing. Mark Rylance looks like he needs to run and do diarrhoea in every scene. Eddie Redmayne does very well, which I am glad to see, as he never went to drama school and defied parental advice to be a banker, so he pulled it off before his father's three years of support was up, well done Eddie. Juno Temple does as well as she could in an undefined part with no help. Why do they keep doing this to history? Why don't they just tell the TRUE stories and be accurate once in a while? Truth is more interesting than all this nonsensical, exploitative fantasy. The producers, director, script writer, head of the BBC, and the whole sorry lot responsible for this abomination should be taken out and shot. No, correction, - beheaded! Must get it right!


This film was terrible. Not only did it not stick to historical facts (which would be understandable since Gregory didn't either), but it also completely changed the plot of the novel. First off, the first twenty minutes or so of Mary getting married, etc were never even in the novel, and basically wasted space in the movie. There was just so much wrong with this movie, I cannot even go into it all. I even like all three of the main leads. What annoyed me the most though, was the choppiness of the film. It never took the time to properly explain anything so that if someone who nothing of the Tudor Era walked in to see it, they'd be left dumbfounded the entire 115 minutes. Ex: If you hadn't read the book, you think "what the heck happened to Mary's first husband?" Also, they never shell out the characters properly. Mary, the MAIN CHARACTER, is barely in the movie at all! And you never really understand the relationship with Stafford or any of it! Hm, the one thing that irritated me the most: Henry raping Anne? WHAT?!


The historical inaccuracies are mind-boggling. It feels like they sat down said 'Alright, we know that Henry will bang both of them and that Anne will have Elizabeth. That's all we need. Let's make the rest of it as sexy as possible.' The ironic thing being that with a PG-13 rating, you can't really be sexy. Especially not when you make Scarlett Johansson incredibly unattractive and knock down Portman's looks a few knots as well. They advertised it as this massively erotic soap opera and it was just a melodramatic, unappealing mess that couldn't have been further from sensual. The technical achievements are pretty solid; the cinematography, costume design and score are certainly among the best of the year so far but none of that makes the film worth watching. I would say that Natalie Portman's good performance makes the film slightly worth sitting through, but the positive aspect in that is completely cancelled out by the atrocity that is whatever Scarlett Johansson did. Calling that a performance would be an insult to performers. It was terrible.


This is a lavish production, flawed in two ways; 1. Gratuitous and irritating framing of far too many shots, through doorways, curtains, pillars, horse's tethers, etc. I could go on, but you get the idea, and 2. inadequate performances in some of the leading roles. Natalie Portman as Anne is great, as is David Morrisey as her uncle, and Kristin Scott-Thomas as her mother. However, Scarlett Johansen is far too weak, as is Eric Bana as Henry; I kept thinking of Robert Shaw in "A Man for All Seasons". Winona Ryder probably would have made a better Mary. George Boleyn ended up too much like Del-boy's brother Rodney. However, I did enjoy it, although the TV version was as good. In addition, it paled in comparison with Elizabeth, Elizabeth: The GoldenAge, and Elizabeth I. One other thing; Scarlett's performance does not bode well for Mary, Queen of Scots. She's pretty enough, but does not have the stature that both this Mary and MQoS requires.


Historical novels often take liberties with history; its expected. And screenplays often take liberties with novels; also expected. And historical screenplays based on historical novels? Hmmm.

Predictably, then, this movie takes huge liberties with historical fact and Phillipa Gregory's historical fiction, and that is not a good thing.

Firstly, events taking place over a number of years are condensed. Mary's rise to Anne's fall appears to be over a maximum of about three years in the film. Events that did not occur were created to "add drama" but they have a bad effect on the narrative (eg. Mary pleading with the king to spare Anne and the King's last minute note warning Mary not to do so again just before Anne was executed). And key real (or at lease reported) events were cut, despite the inherent dramatic effect (eg. Anne's use of the young Elizabeth to appeal to Henry, Henry deserting Anne during a tournament without a goodbye).

Secondly, despite the cumbersome, heavy-handed exposition by just about every character, the movie fails to convey the harsh realities of court life in the Tudor period, where one's progress up the ladder or descent to the scaffold could be the result of either or both intricate plots by rival courtiers or simply the king's mood.

Thirdly, the overall characterisation is pitiful. Oh, Anne has one or two moments, but what about the other characters? Mary is portrayed as weak and, despite the movie's name, seems to be only a foil for Anne. Where was Mary's triumphant courtship with Henry, where was the proof that she was a worthy rival of Anne's (eg. the ship named in her honour) and Mary's romance with Stafford was so lacklustre as to be unbelievable. Queen Katherine is left on the sidelines for most of the movie (except for her magnificent display of queenly outrage before the court when her marriage is called into question). The young men in the movie were almost indistinguishable - Stafford, Carey and George Boelyn all had so little screen time and looked so much alike, the director could have saved money by having one actor play all three parts.

And lastly, a little bit of costume research would not have gone astray.


I loved the book by Phillipa Gregory. I was so excited when I heard they were making it into a movie - and with such wonderful actors... well, I can't even begin to describe how disappointed I was.

The movie is absolutely nothing like the book. The whole tone of the story is changed! The actors weren't bad. Natalie Portman actually gave a wonderfully commanding performance. But I could not get beyond the comparison of movie vs. book. And the movie was just simply awful. It was extremely boring at times and left out parts of the story - like what happened with Mary's husband? I know from the book that he died of illness, but that was never addressed in the movie.

Bottom line: this movie should not even share the same title as the book. If you read the book you will be disappointed in the movie.


Ugh I've been trying to watch screwball comedies from the 30's and 40's and thoroughly enjoying most of them. In reading about them Carole Lombard's name often comes up as the "Queen" of screwball comedies, so when I saw this movie was on I decided to sit back and enjoy seeing the "Queen" at work. While Lombard was funny the movie itself just wasn't, in fact I barely got through it all. As in all movies and especially screwball comedies suspension of disbelief is definitely needed to enjoy the ride but in this case I just couldn't. Ralph Bellamy plays his usual guy who gets dumped for the more fun handsome or charming leading man, in this case played by Fernand Gravey, but for once I can't see why Lombard or anyone would take Gravey over Bellamy. His penniless chef or marquis or whatever he was supposed to be was just plain annoying, I'm assuming this was meant to come off as charming(Lombard's character at least thought so, I think, even that wasn't very convincing) but it wasn't at all.

If I'm to believe Lombard's character is this easily pestered into a relationship then I have to wonder why Bellamy's annoying character hasn't already pestered her into marriage. And her chasing Gravey down the street begging him to take her back after he reveals he has some title was just plain ridiculous(though I guess they had to make something up to set up the final scene). For my first Lombard movie I must say I'm pretty disappointed and really hope this isn't her best work. Hopefully a better leading man or director or script will help.


Ostensibly, it should be hard to understand why certain movies slip into obscurity despite being loaded with talent, but then you come across a case like this one and the possibility suddenly becomes not just plausible but inevitable. On paper, this Anglo-Canadian "existentialist" thriller certainly had potential: an impressive cast  Donald Sutherland, David Hemmings, John Hurt, David Warner, Christopher Plummer and Virginia McKenna  was mouthing the words of screenwriter Paul Mayersberg under the guidance of director Stuart Cooper (the man behind recent Criterion DVD release, OVERLORD [1975]) and being lit by the late great cinematographer (and frequent Stanley Kubrick collaborator) John Alcott; besides, the whole thing was being overseen by producer Hemmings himself. So, where did the film go wrong?

Well, for starters, the central mystery itself is not very interesting: the neglected wife of brooding Donald Sutherland  the No. 1 hit-man for an enigmatic espionage organization  is forever threatening to leave him and does exactly that at the very start of the film; unfortunately, while Sutherland is very good in his role and literally the best thing in it, the actress playing his wife (Francine Racette) is as stiff and unappealing as one of her husband's handiwork. This fact renders the knowledge that Racette is none other than Sutherland's own wife in real life as well almost impossible to believe, since this is hardly borne by their interaction here  least of all during a fragmentary sex scene that ludicrously apes Nicolas Roeg's DON'T LOOK NOW (1973) which, of course, also starred Sutherland! Actually, I had seen Racette act previously in two notable films  Dario Argento's FOUR FLIES ON GREY VELVET (1971) and Joseph Losey's MR. KLEIN (1976)  but I can't really say if her efforts were any better there. For the record, THE DISAPPEARANCE proved to be Racette's penultimate film before retiring to raise her three children with Sutherland. Thankfully, although most of them are practically extended cameos, the supporting cast  of whom, I thought, John Hurt comes off best  does keep one watchingbut, again, the utterly predictable double surprise ending closes the film with a whimper instead of a bang.

Equally to blame for the film's ultimate failure is Stuart Cooper whose direction is pretentious to a fault and, unsurprisingly, he too faded exclusively into TV-movie limbo soon after; for what it's worth, many years ago I did get to watch two of his TV ventures  A.D. (1985) and THE FORTUNATE PILGRIM (1988)  both of which were large-scale productions. Having said that, screenwriter Mayersberg is himself well-known for his non-linear scripts but the would-be audacious time-jumping techniques abused here merely attempt to imbue an obscure and thin plot with some elusive sense of significance; incidentally, even if the 88-minute version I watched was 12 minutes short of the original, I doubt that the missing footage would made things any clearer! Unfortunately for the viewer, Stuart Cooper is no visual stylist like Nicolas Roeg, much less a master film-maker in the league of Alain Resnais! Besides, given the structure and themes of the film, at times I couldn't help but unfavorably compare it to John Boorman's vastly superior POINT BLANK (1967)...


I watched this recently on DVD and nodded off before the end. I have no doubt the artistically-minded will be up in arms but to be honest this is not really a film. A film should provide at least a semblance of entertainment, whether in action, photography, dialogue or story. The cast seems to be assembled from actual monks & country peasants but the naturalistic approach produces a result that looks entirely unnatural, with all the characters looking desperate to get their designated line into the dialogue. I was disappointed to waste part of my evening on this - heaven alone knows what a paying cinema audience would have made of it!


This is probably the worst movie I have seen since another Italian 'masterpiece': Nonhosonno by director Dario Argento. Actors play awfully, the story is unbelievable, the shift from theatre stage to ships not consistent. Bud Spencer randomly mixing Italian with occasional Spanish words is pure crap (why has he to do it?? Is there any reason for that? Maybe because his character is supposedly from Andorra where Spanish is NOT spoken). Moreover, watching Chinese speaking Italian (some are VERY badly dubbed) is kind of ridiculous Chinese proverbs are scattered in the screenplay, and no one of them makes any sense The ships and the setting are indeed beautiful, but why not spending all the money they cost in other stuff, an average screenplay writer and an average director for example oh, I see, they are the same person. I cannot understand why certain directors just do not retire as they should Ermanno Olmi delighted us with at least one masterpiece (L'Albero degli Zoccoli), a lot of boring movies, but never had he attained such a horrible level and still there are reviewers on the web that hold this movie in good opinion (have a look on Google and you'll see)! Hey, Italian film critics, why are you just so scared of writing a negative review for this film? Why praising it? Because Olmi is the prestigious, long career, beloved local filmmaker? Because of "political" reasons? An average Vanzina brothers' movie is 100 times better than this


Watching an almost exact replica of a brilliant film executed in less than impressive manner is just frustrating... and an insult to the original.

Tortilla soup has the right idea, mainly because it was done once before and more successfully for that matter.

I realize it's a remake aimed at a more mainstream audience, but it seems like a bland dish compared to the far more satisfying eat drink man woman.

I would recommend the original any day. as for tortilla soup, watch it only if you're curious about the interpretation.

If there is one thing Tortilla Soup does well, is that it shows the universal themes of eat, drink, man woman, adapatable to any culture.


I greatly enjoyed Eat, Drink, Man, Woman. I found Tortilla Soup a failed attempt to adapt this film to a different audience. First off, I think the plot development is hinged on the relationship between the father and the daughters. However, it is important to note that this dynamic that drives the conflict and action is not so easily found in Latin-American culture as it has been (re)established in LA. With the Asian family in Asia, the father-dauthers dynamic was on the money. The new cultural paradigm for Tortilla Soup simply lacks that essential element. From this, the development of the film is beyond the realm of belief. Adding to my disappointment, was the discovery that the scripts for Eat, Drink, Man, Woman and Tortilla Soup are practically identical. The variations are few and far between, and I think the duo that put in such hard work scripting this film should have stuck to their Asian success.


I have only walked out on a movie twice in my life, and this was one of them. The other was Taxi Driver, which, at that time in my life, was just too violent to stomach. This was just too sickening to stomach. Filled with bad acting, trite dialog, two-dimensional characters, and sometimes-amateurish cinematography and film editing. Examples: A kitchen quarrel amongst the sisters is resolved by playfully breaking dishes on the floor and the three singing and dancing over the shards arm in arm. Just too cute. A character demonstrates her zest for life by standing up in a sports car with the wind blowing in her hair and squealing, "Woo-hoo-o-o-o-o!" Just too trite. And not only did I walk out after 50 minutes, but it was my wife (a "chick-flick" aficionado) who suggested we get out of the theater before she became physically ill from this turkey grande.


An elder Native-American man recounts his life for the young ones.

Slow-moving and somewhat tedious drama-adventure film that seems to take forever to tell its story. After the first half-hour, you'll be looking at the clock, fidgeting on the couch, and wondering if there's anything good in the refrigerator.

Trevor Howard plays the old chief ready to move on to the next life, but the Great Creator seems to have other plans for him before that event takes place. Movie has an attractive cast and the many subtitles are not too much of a hindrance in continuity, but the pacing is that of a snail which makes the 104-minute running time seem a lot longer.

Film tries too hard to be 'beautiful', slowing things down even more.


This is the kind of film that gave liberals a bad name. Cliché-ridden, sentimental, patronizing; you know you have a bad film about American Indians when you have noted British actor Trevor Howard pretending to be one. Of course all he does is lie on his back mouthing Cheyenne with a very bad accent, so I suppose the director hoped his presence wouldn't interfere with this precious little message film; but it is the key to all the wrong that follows the opening sequence.

I confess I only got half-way through the movie; but it stank solid for sure, so I just had to get out for a breath of fresh air, and by the time I got back, the movie was over - thank god.

Everybody over-acts; all the events are predictable. The cinematography is wretchedly television-style, and the muzak is so banal, my girl friend had to take a break to wash her ears out - I mean. this film would define "mediocre" except that some mediocre films are at least watchable; so I guess this is just a really bad film, after all.


I just came from seeing this so-called sci-fi political satire from Cameroon at the Toronto International Film Festival. I don't think I have the words to describe how bad this film was. Put it this way: about twenty minutes in, realizing that I was trapped in the middle of the row, I *willed myself to go to sleep so that the time would pass more quickly*.

I couldn't believe such an amateurish piece made it to the internationally-renowned TIFF. The production values mirrored those of bad 70s-era BBC sci-fi television shows. From the end of the opening credits to the end of the closing credits, the editing was appalling. I think at times the director was intentionally using jump-cuts to create a sense of disorientation, but I can't be sure, since at certain times it simply looked like he was re-doing a take and not bothering to edit to a different POV to cover it up. The laughable acting, which might have been forgivable in a work by high-school film students, was hardly helped by a screenplay that left the audience incredulously trying to sort out what the hell had happened and how the hell we'd gotten to where we were. SPOILER, for those who still think they may bother to see it: The best (worst? funniest, at least) bit was the kung-fu/go-go-dancing climactic scene in which the two female protagonists overcame the Minister of State by invoking some kind of primal female life-force.

This was, bar none, the worst movie I have ever seen. On the People's Choice ballot, I gave it a 1 out of 5. I was not the only one, by a long shot. If there had been negative numbers, I'm sure people would have gladly voted to take points away from their total score. I'm giving it a 2 here simply because I figure I should give it the benefit of the doubt for getting completed despite political and financial disadvantages. I couldn't believe there were still people left in the theatre at the end -- perhaps, like me, they were hoping that the Q&A would clear up their bewilderment. However, it turned out that the director was as inarticulate with words as he was with film -- even in French, his native language.


270 years ago in Salem, a witch and her father were burned at the the stake by a New England Puritan, who is cursed along with all his descendants by black magic and will never find happiness in romance; jump ahead to the present day (circa 1942), the witches are released from their holding spot and the bewitching lass discovers the latest descendant is a handsome politician with a shrew for a fiancée (the witch's father tells her men always marry the wrong woman--it's the girls who get away who cause the real unhappiness). From the story "The Passionate Witch" by Thorne Smith and Norman Matson comes a teasing, silly romantic comedy which begins brightly but flags sometime after that. Fredric March is appropriately befuddled, but Veronica Lake (despite her famous peek-a-boo tresses) has very little charisma (and her sing-songy delivery is a nuisance). The plot is so thin it doesn't even count as a contrivance--sequences (like a disastrous wedding or a hotel fire) start and stop like sketches, and nothing in it is very memorable. ** from ****


This hurts me to say, but this movie was terrible, and my man Freddie was just painful to watch. I was quite surprised, because I was really expecting to love this film.

Fredric March, though perhaps better known for his dramatic roles, can also handle comedy quite well (e.g., he was fabulous in "Nothing Sacred", and even in the dreadful comedy "Susan and God" he was one of the few who made the film bearable). But in "I Married a Witch", there is just nothing that works in this film. It's not funny, and the story is both convoluted and flimsy. I don't know if the failure of this film is due to bad direction, or to the real-life animosity between March and Veronica Lake (though I do think Lake did a good job of hiding her dislike of March when the cameras were rolling), or what. To further add insult to injury, a young and stunning Susan Hayward is completely wasted in a bit part as an unpleasant, one-dimensional shrew of a woman.

If you are a fan of Fredric March (and I am a huge one myself), please spare yourself the disappointment of seeing him flounder in a horrible story, and take a pass on "I Married a Witch". Really. Trust me. It's *THAT* bad! I have most of Freddie's DVDs, and I have several Freddie flicks that aren't available on DVD permanently stored on my TiVo for repeated viewing (Sign of the Cross, Death Takes a Holiday, Executive Suite), and I even have some ancient flicks of his on video tape (True to the Navy, The Wild Party, Dark Angel), and what did I do after "I Married a Witch"? I DELETED IT! On purpose! That should give you an idea of how bad this movie is!

There are much better witch-themed films out there -- Bell, Book and Candle comes immediately to mind. For a wonderful Fredric March flick involving the supernatural, see Death Takes a Holiday. For Freddie in fine comedic form, catch Nothing Sacred.


Famed 18th century (castrato) soprano Ferinelli invites a serious biographical study. This 17-18th c. period was, until recent times, skirted over by musicologists and music history teachers.

The result of this omission has been an unsuspecting awareness of the extent to which male performers dominated all forms of period theater, including opera, oratorio, cantata, ballet, and stage plays. "Ferinneli" had an opportunity to provide substantive information in filling this void.

Unfortunately, what resulted is just another Ken Russell-type production (a la "The Music Lovers," "Lisztomania," "Mahler," etc.). In fact, were Andre Corbiau's name not credited as director of "Ferinelli," one would swear this was a Russell composer biopic.

All Russell trademarks are there: excessive closeups of actors in dramatic distress, swirling activity to cover up script weaknesses, and disjointed highlights instead of sequence continuity.

Director-coscriptor Corbiau has Stefano Dionisi as Ferinneli forever falling down and collapsing both on and offstage for no apparent reason, and using the old device of having him hesitate to sing on cue before a full house to superficially create suspense and anxiety.

In fact, Corbiau, like Russell, is more intent on affecting than expressing: manipulating the viewer than sincerely sharing. As a result, one is held a arm's length of emotional participation throughout.

While no contemporary production can create a truly authentic period setting, there are questions which arise here: George Frederick Handel, one of the world's most prolific and fine composers, is reduced to that of a mere rival theatrical impressario; and Farinelli is forever acting oddly--claiming vocal loss, serious indisposition, and tripping out on opium. Indeed, at times this seems more like a baroque version of sex-drugs-and-rock-'n'roll.

On the brighter side, the staging of the operatic scenes are wonderfully on-target, having been obviously well-researched and meticulously designed. The combination real-and-computer-created vocal work is fascinating in its etherial timbre and in its negotiation of Handelean melismas, embellishments and assorted ornamentation. Likewise, the baroque pit orchestra and period opera house decor is strikingly detailed.

What a pity "Farinelli" fails in its main opportunity: to convey a simple, heart-felt story of one of history's most celebrated singers.


Based on the true story of Carlo Broschi, Farinelli is an opera singer from Europe, hailed for the beauty of his voice and his fine musicianship. Unfortunately for the people who love opera music, this film is a real disappointment. Since it is not about music, but about the costumes, the setting and the boring and pointless relationship between the two brothers, proving to each other they are not `gay'. Compared to Amadeus, this film is worse than a B-movie. It's a B-minor movie.


Nona Brooks is an American singer in a nightclub in the middle of the African jungles, is trying to scrape enough money to get back to the US. When a British intelligence officer is murdered by a pair of Nazi spies in order to get a document that would reveal their identity, Nona escapes from the nightclub, unaware that she is carrying the document. She joins up with Larry Mason, an American archaeologist, and they, along w/ Larry's valet Jeff, try to prevent the spies from capturing them, until they fall into the hands of a cannibalistic tribe. It seems Monogram was trying to cash in on the fun they had with King of the Zombies, but lacks the style that picture due to Yarbrough's listless direction, making this one feel just ho-hum. Not much to rave about from King, Judge, and Moreland, however Criner steals the show as the Oxford educated tribal chief, unfortunately he's only in the last 10 minutes of the movie. Rating, 4.


The film is an odd- well at least odd for the mainstream- mix of drama, stock footage and evangelism. Several scenes consist of the main characters watching the televised pontifications of the producers. . .not exactly very gripping. The packaging claims that the film was 'Shot on location on six continents' and I guess that is technically correct- of course the stock footage was shot by _someone else_-- seems a little misleading for a film destined for the Christian market. The soundtrack is perhaps the one thing that saves the film, and features popular songs from top names in Christian music.


It is too bad that such a potentially good film with such a great plot has to be flawed by such poor talent in every other area. If only the production of this film, and others like it, would JUST TELL THE STORY with good acting and let the message be intuitively realized by the viewers instead of being rammed down their throats with soap operatic soliloquies and didactic preaching. Christian films, such as this one, tend to influence the viewer to seek salvation in other places than Christian Heaven.

However, with all its flaws, it may, for some, be worth watching and can even have you on the edge of your seat at times.


1st watched 1/9/2009 (Dir-Peter Gerretsen): OK media-like account of the Christian belief of Apocalypse and what that will be like, supposedly. The movie centers around a couple who head a news anchor team for "World Wide News" and the movie uses this format to display the events. The cameras used for the movie make the movie look like a soap opera and this isn't very appealing. Also, the acting and production values are so-so, but I guess I shouldn't expect much from an evangelist(since it was produced by one). But anyway, Leigh Lewis does a good job in her role of the women anchorperson who sees the light after losing her grandmother with the believers going back to heaven during the worldwide disappearance of souls that happens right before nuclear bombs are supposed to explode in all areas of the world. Then a foreign leader calls himself the new messiah and stops the bombs. He, of course, is really the anti-Christ but at first brings peace to the world. All of this is probably foreign to those who haven't read the Bible, but this movie is just one man's interpretation of what he's read and the movie is definitely trying to sell his point of view as him and his wife are also in the movie. This all makes for a kind of cheesy movie that doesn't accomplish much because of it's obvious intended purpose  to save all us poor lost souls. Well, I think the reverend should go back to what he apparently does best and it's not making movies.


Combining stunningly inept film-making and obnoxious religious zealotry, this shot-on-video quickie manages to make the Apocalypse look, well, not really all that bad.

Compared to, say, a radiation-scared Jason Robards stumbling through the smoking ruins of a nuked Kansas City in "The Day After" - this Peter & Paul Lalonde vision of the End Of Everything looks positively cheery and stress-free. Everyone is well scrubbed during the Tribulation and look like they get plenty of rest and regular meals. Sure, there's a bit of bother with the Antichrist, but that more-or-less sorts itself out and, anyway, the One World Order doesn't seem to affect anyones day-to-day routine like a 10 megaton thermonuclear weapon tends to.

The only thing that saves this film is, well, nothing. Nothing saves this film. Sorry. I can't lie. "Apocalypse" is a complete waste of video tape from back to front. The wooden acting is unwatchable, the sets are poverty stricken and the script is lowest-common-denominator god-bothering trash that alternates between laughable and hackneyed.

There are plays written by 7th graders that have more depth and nuance than this miserable pile of dime-store eschatology. But the absolute worst is the film's smug expectation of forbearance. It permeates every wretched frame like a sulfurous stink. "Apocalypse" expects it's audience to forgive it's definitive lack of anything even remotely resembling competence because it's intentions are good.

And we all know which road is paved with good intentions.


I know that I'm about to bash a movie that many consider a classic of Argentinian cinema, but hey, controversy rules! So, here it goes.

In 1986, Argentinian director Eliseo Subiela and Argentinian stars Hugo Soto and Lorenzo Quinteros did what we can call a "predecessor" to the book by Gene Brewer, K-PAX, witch originated Iain Softley's homonym major hit and masterpiece on the big screen with Kevin Spacey and Jeff Bridges. However, any resemblance on this Argentinian piece with Brewer's book were declared like purely coincidental, as the author declared having knowledge about the movie five years after writing his book.

Coincidence or not, we'll never know for sure. What I know for sure is that K-PAX is far superior than the movie from 1986 in so many senses.

To start with, "Man Facing Southeast" (Hombre Mirando Al Sudeste) is a very cold movie. Totally absent of feelings, with cold thematic, script and a very bad acting, and the absence of charisma from the characters makes it even worse. As this is a low budget movie for the age it was made, we can live with the simplistic scenarios, edition and the absence of a mystical and "out of this world"-like climax (as we see in K-PAX), not counting that it was filmed in a third world country. No problem with those things.

The movie sometimes tries to explain too much things, and looses it's narrative focus, it's not philosophical in any sense. The "in off" narration bothers as well, and shows itself unnecessary in most part of the film. The movie have a boring rhythm. Not because it's slow. "2001 - A Space Odissey" is an extremely slow movie but keeps itself daring and interesting all the time. The problem with "Man Facing Southeast" is that the script looses itself many times in situations that wasn't need to be so detailed. It seems like Subiela wants to regurgitate every information in people's head, not giving space for us to think. The movie looses it's focus so much making people feels so bored and tired that you'll wish it to end in the middle of the film.

As I said before, the acting is poor, very poor. None of the actors convince us in their roles, they act like they don't care. Jeff Bridges was bureaucratic in K-PAX, but still convincing, he was like "hey, I'm so glad I got this role, I'm really enjoying being here!" Also, the movie have unnecessary and utterly disgusting sequences, like the ones showing pieces of corpses in laboratory and naked corpses being transported. There's also a sex scene that I believe they did just to show what actress Inés Vernengo really have under the dress... you know what I mean. Very tiny ones there was no need of that! Things that totally breaks the feel of the story and rips the rest of the good ideas.

The story, by the way, is really similar to K-PAX. Man that appears from nowhere and is sent to a clinic where a psychiatric tries to convince him he's not an alien. As the story goes, we are presented to the past of Rantes, where details of his life are revealed, showing who he really are, witch leads us to the revelations in the end of the tape. Rantes will slowly gain the sympathy from the crazies of the clinic that here, works only as mere supporting cast, with no voice or importance like in K-PAX.

Of course there are positive points in this movie: It ends; it have some nice criticism about future of mankind and the paths that man are taking; the thematic is very interesting, although it's poorly developed; for a low budget movie, it's well produced for that age; the sequence where Rantes conducts an entire orchestra is wonderful; the doctor plays sax very well; the soundtrack of the movie is also brilliant; and it makes me wanting to watch K-PAX all over again.

Bottom line: it's a movie that is worth watching just in case you're curious to see more about Argentinian movies. Maybe some masterpiece like The Motorcycle Diaries could be a better example of what Latin cinema is capable of. So, if you want to watch a better movie with the same plot as Man Facing Southeast, catch a beam of light and watch K-PAX. You'll thank me later.


***** MILD SPOILERS ******

The title sequence of ELITE features some very obvious exposition ( Just like THE A TEAM ) telling the story of how an elite business cartel are killed in a terrorist attack and how the victims children are brought by a shadowy government department to be trained as an anti terrorist unit , an elite anti terrorist unit , an elite anti terrorist unit composed of spoiled brats . It should be pointed out that the title sequence is preceeded by an action sequence featuring a band of terrorists who detest American greed . I`ve also got to point out that having the terrorist attack take place before the title sequence somehow feels wrong . The title sequence should have been shown before the terrorist raid .

After the title sequence we`re shown what these spoiled rich kids are capable of , and boy are they capable of anything , they can defuse a nuclear missile , blow away hundreds - And I`m talking literally of hundreds - of bad guys without suffering a scratch and show us what lovely white teeth they have . I guess being part of an elite anti terrorist has its benefits since they all obviously have access to elite dental treatment - Is this why the movie is called ELITE ? The goes on and I found it very difficult to empathise with 20 something Americans with great hair and great teeth who can do absolutely anything in a tricky situation without suffering a scratch so I found myself siding with the anti capitilist villains which I suppose is something of a compliment to the screenwriter , all too often the motivation for the bad guys is too vague or too over the top unlike here where I could identify with the European villain who has a pathological hatred of globilization and free market economics . Only thing is I don`t believe the audience were actually meant to identify so clearly with the bad guy, it was only after being battered over the head as to how well educated and well off the heroes were that I found myself cheering for the baddies in a film that feels like it was cross bred with GOLDENEYE and BEVERLY HILLS 90210


This movie sucks. The plot is not that bad, I guess, but the acting and action scenes are bad. The movie is about some kids whose parents died, and then they are trained to be elite soldiers. The film begins with the bad guy driving around in a truck at night. Then it suddenly goes to the opening credits, and we see the "Elite" soldiers. They are chasing some guys because they apparently have a code that they need to stop a missile from launching. Of course they succeed in stopping the missile, just 1 second before it would be launched.

And I love all the coincidences in this movie. Like in the beginning, when the bad guys escape, but then suddenly a truck crashes into them. Or when the Elite see the car of the bad guys, lying on a train railway, and say "They might still be alive", but then a train arrives and drives over the car, just classic.

3/10


Incoherent from the very beginning, I felt as if I was watching something computer generated, not unlike the Cox Cable commercials starring the exceptionally hideous "Digital Max." Imagine my surprise when I came to IMDb and saw an actual cast listing.

Needless to say, I didn't get far, but I did see enough to realize that the movie could possibly serve a higher purpose - as a tool for court-ordered evaluations in competency hearings. If a person can sit through this film, a guardian should absolutely be appointed to make all important decisions for the individual in question.

And be forewarned, there have been no scientific studies: it's just possible that someone in full command of his faculties might begin watching, and in the course of the experience, become impaired.


In what I can only describe as a "perfect storm" of bad acting, bad writing, bad producing, bad stunts, bad camera-work, and bad editing, this movie has gone beyond being a campy B-Movie. This is one that, when you think you've reached the bottom of the barrel but lift up the barrel and examine what's underneath, you find.

The plot is strictly formula driven - no originality. The actors are plasticly in their performances, and the special effects really do look like something a high-school kid might create in his garage.

In general, I found it to have a made-for-TV or a direct-to-video quality to it.

This is one that the Mystery Science Theater 3000 team would have a field-day suffering through.


This movie had a great story premise, unfortunately no budget for production or actors. Spielberg or Hanks could have made it an excellent movie.

Normally I don't mind watching the odd low budget movie, but this one really stunk!!!


This grade-B flick is actually a cut above your typical made-for-cable fare, notably because there is a semblance of plot to add to the by-the-numbers action sequences. A young "elite squad" of trained anti-terrorists take on Jurgen Prochnow in a by-now expected villain turn, and there's a personal twist to the proceedings as well. All of the cast is awfully pretty (at first it was difficult to distinguish between any of the three blond male leads, two of whom are twins!), and the beautiful Maxine Bahns kicks some terrorist butt as well (not so far-fetched, as I learned from her IMDB bio that she's a triathlete in real life). All in all, a pretty decent way to waste a sleepless night while surfing the cable box. 2 stars (out of 5) on the Corkymeter.


Simply love films and view them all the time, but I actually found myself going to sleep during all the very slow boring scenes. Despite some so called action scenes on a Battleship and some gals that looked beautiful, but needed to eat a meal once in a while. There is a tragic commercial airline crash with all the elite business brains in the country going to their death. Then we progress forward from one topic to another topic, we see twin guys, a game programmer taken hostage and a big bad old time Battleship put into action by a bunch of nuts. The sailor's on the ship had hats that looked like they all came from Disney Land. I should have continued to fall asleep. Miss this film, don't waste your time, it really is a great film to sleep through.


the premise of the film is that they trained together since pre-pubescence. then in the first action scene they all act like they're meeting each other for the first time. I couldn't make it past the first 15 minutes. I don't know why Time Warner rated it a 2.5 out of 4...but it's an awful film.

oh yeah, and even the first scene sucks. the guy comes in and is asked to shoot one of his undercover cohorts. Of course he gives in and tries to shoot the villain instead. And there's a bloody ICBM in an Austrian chapel...Europeans would never do something like that to their heritage. Hell, even Americans plant them out in the middle of nowhere amongst the corn and wheat.


This film is among the worst crap you can see on TV. Yes, I enjoy laughable b-action movies sometime but this is just torture. How in the world can you make up such a story and then collect North-Americas worst actors and make a film out of it???? I rather enjoy watching Dolph Lundgren making an ass of himself instead watch this movie again. DON'T SEE IT, and you will save some money. /NL


So I got this movie recommended by a horror-film buff at the local videostore, and I somewhat appreciate that he told me about this movie. It has a good plot and great potential to do something with it. It has a good soundtrack with mostly electronic songs on it. But it felt too much like a student project film for some course on film-making.

The main actor gets annoying fast and can't deliver dialogue at all. (Probably why they cast him in a serial killer role) And having the serial killer talk about what he's doing the entire length of the movie gets really boring and drawn out. I don't know where they got any of these actors, and I hope I'm not "fortunate" to see them in another film. The plot itself falls flat when the multi-twist ending gets pushed in your face and you feeel like screaming, "Oh man!" and feel ultimately disappointed. And if the main guy gives me one more Nietzsche quote, I'm gonna be his new killer.

Overall, a good concept which goes dry and actors who can't act or speak so they speak over the action. And the quality is sub par if that means anything. 4/10


I can't say very many good things about this movie. The only thing good about it was the original idea of one serial killer stalking and competing with another, which I've never heard of before. Oh and it made me think, several times, that I could shoot a better movie in a week with a digital camera and the change in my pocket.

The narration makes it feel almost like a graphic novel. You actually spend more time inside the main character's head than in the world. There was one thing that was pretty amusing. At one point the main character finds a dead body in his trunk, a gift from his competition. So he moves it to the trunk of a police detective's car. I had to LOL at that.


the premise of hunting humans is good.the mind and thoughts of a serial killer and whats happens when the serial killer is suddenly threatened and challenged by a second serial killer.the internal dialogue of our star killer is hilarious(in a sick sick way).the plot is pretty original.but the acting,camera work,and sound are a lil high schoolish ,and the end gets corny beyond belief. i knew you knew that i knew that you knew that i knew that you were knowing that i used to know what you forgot to know that you would do that; is the way it starts to play out.id recommend seeing it but not expecting too much.you might enjoy it that way.4 is a honest review..this would be good material for a larger budget re imagining.


OK, let me get my criticisms out of the way first:

Bad acting. No, not bad. Horrendous acting. The main character (Rick Ganz) wasn't unwatchable, but he is a few drama classes away from being called a good actor. The rest of the cast on the other hand, showed all the talent of a kindergarten ballet recital, with the charm and charisma of that kid sitting behind you in a movie theater that keep kicking the back of your chair.

Bad camera work. Flat out just bad. The camera shakes like it's being handled by an elderly man who hasn't eaten or slept in a week. I understand that low budget movies can't always afford a steadi-cam, but for crying out loud, invest $5 in a tripod willya?

Bad writing. The dialogue is stilted and pretentious. You can really tell that the writer is trying a little too hard to come up with classic lines and witty repartee. And for the record, he fails miserably at this task.

Bad editing. The worst. I've seen smoother transitions and jumps on "Jackass". Oh, and Mr. Editor, it might interest you to know that a four minute long series of cross-dissolves and fades is neither an artistic vision, nor is it pleasant to watch.

Now for the good:

Great premise. It really is. Granted it wasn't pulled off quite as well as it could have been, but it is a great idea. Kudos Mr. Writer, it seems you can do something right.

Good suspense. As hard as I found it to like this movie, I found it equally as hard to tear my eyes away from the screen. They do a pretty good job of keeping you guessing and building suspense.

Overall it wasn't a bad movie. If you can get past the poor audio quality, and stomach the acting you'll have a pretty good time. I'd recommend this as a late night guilty pleasure.

Oh, and if anyone can figure out why the hell the voice-over narration (from the main character) didn't sound a damn thing like the main character's voice let me know.


Reading the back of the case I thought this movie might be a good choice to watch. That, however, was a huge mistake. This movie had horrible acting, what must have been an insanely low budget, and the directing was quite poor. I'm sure such directors as Alex Proyas, or others would agree with me on this. Now I am a fan of independent films, but this one was just horrible all around. Another bad feature was how they chose to tell the story. The majority of the film was done by narration. In this type of genre that does not make for a good movie. It often caused the film to seem as if it were dragging along. Another part I had noticed was that they often tried elaborating on certain aspects, like "key capture" software, and the writer/directors knowledge on lock picking. It all made it seem very hokey, and not thought out.


DO NOT SEE THIS MOVIE! It is a big waste of time. My friends and I, aspiring filmmakers ourselves, rented this thinking it sounded good, and since it was an indie film with a distribution deal, it might make for a learning experience. I wish we could have gotten our money back. First off, they used a 16mm camera that had to have been at least thirty years old, thus making the quality of the picture suck. Second, the writing was terrible, I could feel my IQ dropping. Third, these guys couldn't act their way out of a wet paper bag. Fourth, whatever money they had was blown on the menus for the DVD, and their behind-the-scenes footage was better quality than the film itself. And no, I'm not being too hard on these guys. They had something of a budget, not much maybe only a few hundred dollars, but that's more than the people I work with have ever had and our stuff is a thousand times better. I've seen better stuff come from a high school drama club. These guys shouldn't be aloud to make anymore movies.


The POV of Lady the In The Lake experiment hides the fact that Robert Montgomery wasn't up to the task of being Philip Marlowe. Oh he had the tough talk down pat, but as someone said earlier he was better in Ride The Pink Horse. In this movie he doesn't feel like Marlowe, a Marlowe who can take and give a hard punch. The first confrontation he takes a punch that results in a black eye but it leaves him unconscious! Dick Powell- the surprise Philip Marlowe of all time-and Humphery Bogart-one of the best Marlowes of all time-would've required a shot from Moose Malloy or a sap to the head by some strong arm thugs to go down from one blow like that. Perhaps it was her reaction to a camera instead of an actor that made Audrey Totter seem chilled in their "scenes" together rather than Claire Trevor's cold hearted user and Lauren Bacall's cool cynic in the earlier Marlowe incantations. And MGM was never at that time at least a studio known for hardboiled,gritty crime dramas. The Christmas carols though were a nice touch and Lloyd Nolan who should have played the lead was good as usual in his role as the crooked cop. Nolan had played a PI in some Michael Shayne Bs before the noir cycle began so he knew the mannerisms and Philip Marlowe a tarnished knight with principles would've been a perfect fit. All in all Lady In The Lake is noteworthy for it's groundbreaking experiment, the appeasement of a fading leading man's ego (not the last time either)and some vision into the world of Chandler's alter ego. George Montgomery as Philip Marlowe? Blasphemy! James Garner- a 60s laidback version suitable but also a precursor to Jim Rockford who had his Chandler moments. Roert Mitchum was Philip Marlowe both in looks and world weariness a perfect match only Bogart equals him. Mr. Montgomery would ride a pink carousel horse to better success.


The first-person perspective could be viewed as a brave experiment or a case-study of why nobody EVER makes movies this way. Three points:

1) In a movie, we like to see the main character reacting.

2) Actors look self-conscious when endlessly talking to a camera.

3) The lack of edits makes many scenes tedious.

Still, you can admire how hard all this was to stage and shoot, in a age when cameras weighed a ton, made too much noise and nobody owned a Steadicam. Reminds me of the kind of crazy gimmicks Hitchcock sometimes tried but Hitch would have never let the train go this far off the tracks.


When I first became very enthused about film noir, and began collecting about every tape I could find that was labeled such, this was included. Unfortunately, just because it had the words "film noir" printed on the VHS box didn't guarantee it was a good film. This is a prime example.

Lady Of The Lake, as you all know, was filmed differently, the camera being the "eyes" of Philip Marlow. We see exactly what he sees, meaning we never see him unless he's looking into a mirror. That may sound kind of cool, but it isn't. It wears think after a fairly short and then gets downright annoying.

Robert Montgomery and Audrey Tottter, the two stars of the movie, wear thin pretty quickly, too. There isn't much to recommend. I give them '4 stars out of 10' for trying something radically different.....but none for the results.


Montgomery substitutes a gimmick for quality film-making. He and Fisher and have absolutely no ear for Chandler-esquire writing. Actors hit marks and then don't move from them through the rest of scenes, and lines are delivered as if read from cue cards. The film is essentially confined to interior scenes shot in sets that look like sets -- the pivotal scene of the book, in which the lady is found in the lake, is replaced with mere narrative. In the one scene in which he appears -- at a mirror -- Montgomery doesn't capture the demeanor of Marlowe, "who himself is not mean, who is neither tarnished nor afraid" but is nonetheless wearied beyond his years by going down "mean streets". And that scene at the mirror proves that Montgomery hadn't even the competence to master his gimmick, as it is plainly shot at an angle to hide the camera, so that the camera does not see Marlowe's reflection as he would have seen it.


I think I remember the original reviews of this movie, and they were universally bad. But sometimes one might enjoy a bad movie when it is seen as a historical context--but this is not such a movie. It is unfaithful to the wonderful writing of Raymond Chandler. As an adaptation to the silver screen it does not even come close to "The Big Sleep," "Double Indemnity" or any other of Raymond Chandler's stories. Montgomery's attempt at tough guy speech is ludicrous; it's as though he is trying to emulate Humphrey Bogart while at the same time avoiding a comparison. Furthermore, it is derivative of Hitchcock and Orson Wells but falls ridiculously short of these standards to be thought of as something revolutionary in film. Probably the only value of this movie is to see Jayne Meadows at a very young age. She comes across as the perfect ingenue but is too sweet to have been a primary villain.


This movie could only interest a film historian. The camera shows the point of view of the lead character, Marlowe. This is a technical failure: deadened pans and zooms, no physical contact with other characters, no outdoor scenes.

With clever self-reference, writer Raymond Chandler has Marlowe try his hand at pulp detective fiction -- based on his own experience, of course. The publisher's executive assistant, A. Fromsett (overplayed by Audrey Totter), expresses interest in the manuscript, to draw Marlowe into looking for the publisher's missing wife. Soon we are up to our camera lens in blonde bombshells, drawling thugs, crooked cops, and dead bodies.

This could be an intriguing story. Unfortunately, Robert Montgomery, playing the lead (appearing in mirrors and editorial commentary), also directs. He has a tin ear for dialogue, a glass eye for scenery, and a peg leg for pacing.

Those looking for an entertaining Marlowe crime drama should try "Farewell my Lovely", "The Big Sleep", or "The Long Goodbye".


Lady In The Lake (3 out of 10)

Phillip Marlowe movies marry us to the detective's point of view. He is in every scene, and we never see what happens behind his back. The Lady In The Lake takes this one step further. Here the camera itself is Marlowe. The majority of the movie is Marlowe's P.O.V. -- the camera shakes when he gets slapped around, and "our" eyes close when he kisses the girl. No Stedicam, of course, so the camerawork is pretty stiff, but not nearly as stiff as the acting.

The Raymond Chandler plot is as good as you might expect, and I allowed myself to accept the gimmick; however, the acting is worse than I have ever seen in any A-movie of the studio system. Beyond horrible. Did the actors feel silly talking to the camera?

Lila Leeds is stunning in her brief turn as a receptionist. If I had to be busted with pot, like Robert Mitchum, I'd do the perp walk with her any night.


Regrettably, this is one of the worst noir films I've seen. Robert Montgomery as a hard-boiled Philip Marlowe? C'mon. His accent alone is pathetic. Luckily, with the POV technique, we don't have to see him, since he looks even less authentic. As for the supposedly wonderful, pungent prose of Raymond Chandler--it's laughable. There are so many wonderful noir films--Double Indemnity, Out of the Past, Woman in the Window, Shadow of a Doubt, etc--it's a shame this is around to drag down the genre. Sorry.


A good thing they hardly ever show Montgomery because he is completely unbelievable as Marlowe. How and why he ever falls seriously for Audrey Totter, whose characterization of a phony female is overdone even for the time, is one of the mysteries of the film. Audrey Meadows steals the show as a ditzy possible murderess. All in all a poorly done detective flick.


Easily one of the most misguided projects in film history by virtue of its dogged determination to site the camera itself as the first person narrator point of view. How could the producers have sat through dailies and not realized the "concept" did not work. In fact, hardly a scene goes by that is not unintentionally funny. Demonstrates conclusively the absurdity of first person p.o.v. in film.


This movie has a lot of promise. It failed. I love a movie where Tori Spelling just looks beautiful, yet does not speak. She is so magnetically attractive. Yet---she speaks. Speaking is a bad habit for little old Tori. I guess Tori Spelling is the female version of Tom Cruise. This movie is a sorry mess, where an actor who just yells is given more than twenty minutes of screen time: namely Croaker. The lead actor, what's his name, the loser/fry cook, is actually interesting. Also, Dietrich Bader, provides acting ability, otherwise absent from this movie. Bader is far superior to this mess. This is a goofy movie that fails to be goofy. It is a failure. Michael Weston, the fry cook/loser, is acceptably good enough as the 20-something guy. The amateur acting throughout this film is not acceptable. This kind of movie-making actually vaulted the series Star Trek to fame. I am cool with that.


I first noticed this DVD in a record/movie shop some months ago. Being a sci-fi fanatic, I was determined not to let this movie slip by me. But of course I didn't want to pay very much for it, suspecting that it probably wasn't great. So, yesterday I found it as a very cheap ex-rental DVD and bought it.

Gah. Had I watched this at a friend's place, I would definitely not have bought a disc of my own. Evil Alien Conquerors is a silly and not very funny movie. I stopped watching halfway through and rated it a "2" out of 10. But I went back and watched the rest, and the second half, with Tyler Labine's Croker, was quite a bit better. So I've raised the rating to a "3". Only fair.

Labine is funny. His Croker character is very well acted. But it's the only even remotely interesting part of this movie. If, that is, you have a sense of humor. If you don't, you might find this movie funny. Ha.


Smirnoff Ice is mentioned about three dozen times in this movie; it's even mentioned in the "Evil Alien Conqueror" theme song that's played at the end as the credits roll!

For some strange reason, Tori Spelling wasn't originally credited in this movie, although her appearance as Jan is, in my opinion, the only thing that makes this movie worth watching. I've never seen her look anything less than fabulous, but her waist looks particularly long and slender in this movie. Unfortunately, the most skin she shows is her face and arms. Her most sensual and erotic scene is when one of the Evil Alien Conquerors feels up her hairy "unibrow".


the best part of this movie was the theme song. deidrich bader, excellent in the drew carey show, falls far short in this movie. the acting is wooden and the jokes are very lame. What started out as a good premise very quickly died!


This is a terrible movie. I was embarrassed just watching this movie. Don't give this movie a second of your time. I thought it looked like it might be kind of funny in the video store. Turns out that i just wasted a 1/2 a gallon of gas, $5, and 2 hours of my time to see what is possibly the worst movie in the store.

The spoiler is that you end up wasting your valuable time. I wouldn't recommend this movie to anyone. It should never become a cult classic for being so bad. That's how bad it is. People that refer to this movie as entertaining are merely jerks that want to tick people off.

The actors in this movie should be embarrassed that they ever considered doing this movie. Tori Spelling didn't even want her name in the credits on this movie. Try to guess why.


There really isn't much to say about this "film". It has the odd smile or chuckle moment, but on the whole it's bland, predictable and generally pretty dull.

The only reason I gave it three out of ten was for the annoyingly catchy jingle (which I hope I will forget soon....please God!). Otherwise its junk. Or mostly junk, interspersed with adverts for Smirnoff Ice.

The lead characters give OK performances, but they really don't have anything much to work with.

Best advice: Avoid it like a dentist's appointment. Or better yet, make a dentist's appointment instead of watching it.


I watched it hoping there was going to be a lot of good quality, wholesome American nudity, however there ended up being nothing remotely redeeming about the film. The least they could have done to make it interesting was to add nudity! Usually a film like this gets by on gratuitous sex, but alas there was none to be found. If you have a chance to see this movie, watch something else instead or just go to bed. If you wish to torture your friends or family for awhile, then put this film on the big screen and watch everyone squirm in their seats with boredom. This film is a poorly done reincarnation of the lameness of a movie such as The Coneheads from the eighties. Avoid it and save yourself!


This is the dumbest most useless movie ever! Its almost like the script came from toilet paper some guy used in a stall. It was so unfunny it was uncomfortable to watch. It is the complete anti-thesis of entertainment. I have seen better productions in college and on cable access. Just absolutely awful all the way. There is nothing redeemable from this movie. This quite simply has to be the most moronic film to ever hit the planet.

The dialog was useless and did not ever look realistic. Its as if the actors are reading in monotone off of a cue card. The acting was deplorable. It should be viewed at acting school as what not to do. I think all together it is a pure waste of film, waste of space and waste of time in video store or cable station in the universe!


Recap: My-ik and Du-ug is sent to Earth to conquer and kill all mankind. To complete their task they have two and a half day, then a 100-feet tall giant human-eating monster will be sent after them. Unfortunately for our two evil conquerors, their swords came through the transport extremely small. Now the aliens have to trust their abilities, skill and superiority to finish their task. Unfortunately, they have none. And discovering such treasures as Smirnoff Ice, and two lovely ladies, they start to doubt their mission.

Comments: Now, there are good movies, and there are bad movies. In the bad category there are just plain bad movies, and there are so bad movies that they're funny. This movie creates a completely new category. This movie is so extremely awfully bad, that it is not even remotely funny. What was supposed to be jokes, was just plain stupid. What was supposed to be a story was a bad edited, poorly explained, predictable mess. What is supposed to be the great ending, is just a coverall dressed man, stumbling about screaming. And that is supposed to be the best in the entire movie? Now, I understood that this was low budget, but please, I've seen far better movies with far less budget. Written by Matheson, also the author behind Bill & Ted, I can't imagine what he has done to loose all talent the past decade. Where Bill and Ted is a masterpiece (in comparison anyway) in fun simplicity and a success on all levels, Evil Alien Conquerors fails in every aspect. Acting performance is as bad as other aspects of the movie, and i can't imagine how actors like Diedrich Bader and Tori Spelling ended up in this mess, it wasn't for the money obviously.

The best part of the entire production is the title 'Evil Alien Conquerors' that actually made me smile, and fooled me into waste 86 minutes of my life. I want them back!

1/10


The producer(s) of this film (I use the term film guardedly) obviously had not a prayer (and maybe no intention) of turning out anything even resembling a movie film. So why did they do it? A tax write-off by investors? Come on. This movie was the most disgusting, boring, poorly-acted, poorly directed, devoid-of-screenplay, insulting movie ever made. I had a screen pass at BBuster and decided to try it. I hoped the long odds might pay off. I have never shut down a movie this quick before in my life (5 minutes). Dumb and dumberer was Oscar material by comparison.

I think the lines were made up on the fly. The director was flirting with the makeup girl. The grips were doing the directing.


This is just another example of the continuing downward spiral of Eddie Murphy's once exciting career. Murphy will always have scripts handed to him and he'll always be working in films but the once edgy comedian has lost his edge a long time ago. This story takes place in the future where Earth has populated the Moon and a former smuggler named Pluto Nash (Murphy) takes over a nightclub from a friend and Nash makes it a big success and moneymaker. A young woman and aspiring singer named Dina Lake (Rosario Dawson) asks for a job but all Nash gives her is the opportunity to waitress. Some mobsters have been buying up the local business's and they want Nash's club but he won't sell. So they blow the place up and try to kill him but Nash, Dina and a robot named Bruno (Randy Quaid) escape and the mobsters try and find him. This film was directed by Ron Underwood who is usually reliable with lightweight comedy like this but this film fails from the outset. The special effects are adequate but not overly impressive. Many of the scenes are clearly filmed on a soundstage and in one shot Underwood resorts to actors being hoisted by wires for the gravity effect. Didn't they stop doing that in the 60's? And poor Randy Quaid has to play a horny and overly sensitive robot. Were we really suppose to find it amusing that he tries to get it on with other robots? But the big flaw comes from Murphy himself. This once exciting comedian use to be so reliable for edgy performances but here he plays his character totally straight. As you watch this you keep waiting for Murphy to say something witty and off the cuff but it never happens. It looks like Murphy has decided to try and be an action star or be the romantic lead. Murphy has become boring to watch and its sad to watch his films now. Pam Grier pops up as Murphy's mother but she has nothing to do. She has maybe two scenes and then she runs off (Literally). This film wastes opportunities and the script has nothing new to offer. Along with Murphy's boring and drab performance this film was dead on arrival!


And to think my all-time fav genre is sci-fi comedy! Here's a prime textbook case at how not to do one.

It's a comedy with only a microscopic trace of humor, a sci-fi that really could just have easily been set in present-day Earth with no sci-fi elements at all, and an action film that contains only the standard D-grade action story setups and climaxes - and done at a lackadaisical by-the numbers contract-delivery pace.

The only element that has the slight bit of remote interest is Randy Quaid as a rather quirky bodyguard robot. At least it's an interesting exercise at how to play a totally fanciful out-of-this world concept with no real-life equivalent. Yeah - the sort of role that your standard modern drama school graduate would be scratching their heads trying to get a grip on; and your academic drama scholar would be tearing their hair out till they looked like Homer Simpson over the fact "its not the type of role -or story for that matter- that has any credibility or truth to the human experience" (blah blah!) The fact that he is even a tiny bit watchable in that deserves a bit of a finger-clap - maybe.

It could have been so much better - a few puppet-type aliens hanging around, a bit more showing of the light gravity bits, a dig at your serious Arthur C Clarke space drama like MOONDUST - anything at all to make this remotely interesting as a cinema experience - or even a storyline.

But what we actually get is the real sort of movie that the conservative critics have accused all summer-style movies of being: brainless formulaic uncreative popcorn entertainment plying to the lowest common denominator that is churned out when the bloated Hollywood studio system is working on autopilot.

Actually - this is the movie that makes the normal summer blockbuster movies look like works of literary genius. The critics should have been aware of the old saying: "Be careful what you wish for - you just might get it."


See a lot of guys giving this a one out of ten, not really fair I feel. To me there are lots of worse movies in all categories. But that said - it's not a top notch movie.

I've never been a fan of director Ron Underwood - he might be decent for TV but features aren't his strong side in my opinion. You'll notice best when it comes to the comedy parts (the attempts I should say) and the actions sequences.

As for comedy, the directing does nothing to enhance the seemingly weak script. Since comedy seems to be what this movie was to be about and the pace seems intended to be rather fast - maybe they should have gone for a director who could make something out of it? The action sequences are incredibly lame. It resembles grown people playing war without saying "pow pow". Here the director's at a loss as well, which shows in sequences as when Randy Quaid's robot character is taking out his two canons for guns. I take it, this is supposed to be a "cool" shot but the angle of camera, timing and pace makes it about as cool as when your dad hangs up his coat upon returning home from work.

The budget ($100 million allegedly) didn't seem to be a problem and the special effects as well as the sets seem pretty well done, along with a pretty nice cast (even tiny sub-minute parts are mostly done by actors you at least recognize). This must be seen as further critique of the director, since he seemed to have all the necessary tools at hand.

The actors put in from a half-hearted to a decent effort. A lot of great character actors (Joe Pantoliano) didn't get enough space to be interesting and there is a lot of untapped comedy resource in both Jay Mohr and Eddie Murphy. Though it has to be said  Pam Grier put in what has to be her worst performance ever as the mother of Eddie Murphy's character. One you can always trust to give his spirit is Luis Guzmán, and he doesn't disappoint in this one either.

All in all I would say there was a weak script to start with, that grew even weaker when it was handed to a director that couldn't handle the sort of comedy it was supposed to be, nor the action it was supposed to contain. Probably actors underachieved, especially in the comedy department, due to this directing. The end result was nor a comedy, nor an action  simply a bleak sci-fi that was one of the biggest net-losses in movie history if I got it right. My guess is that the guys at Warner Brothers probably are killing themselves for not picking a more suitable director.


It really is too bad. The sets looked great, the special effects on the moon were well done, it's just that the film has no soul at all. Nothing. The script was brutal to put it kindly. It is kind of like what Beverly Hills Cop 7 would have been after they had started to go downhill after the first one. Murphy tries to make it humorous, but there was no humour in any of the lines. They were just frustratingly moronic. It was 3's Company type action, with many bug-eyed looks at other characters, pratfalls, ludicrous plot holes, and juvenile humour. There are no redeeming qualities at all in this movie apart from the set design. It is really sad that a studio would waste that kind of money (100 mil) on garbage like this when the set could have been put to much better use.

There are very few highlights, one in particular involving John Cleese as an automated chauffeur. But that is about it. All of the cast members are wasted in this lackluster effort, including Eddie Murphy himself. He has proved he can carry a film (Beverly Hills Cop, 48 Hours, Trading Places), but it has been a long time since he has appeared in anything decent. This could have been it, however the director went for a 3 Stooges approach instead of a much grittier and darker 48 Hours. If this movie had any of 48 Hours grit, or BHC's humour, it might have been halfway decent. Instead it is nothing more than smarmy, predictable, dull, and annoying. The fight between the Murphys at the end was very well done graphically, it wasn't possible to determine exactly how they did it (Murphy fights himself), except of course it was the type of fight that would have been more at home in an Ernest movie. All the special effects are therefore completely wasted, along with the 100 mil some studio sunk into this dog. What were they thinking? 2/10 (I gave an additional point for the sets, NOT for the movie)


This movie was so savagely criticized that I desperately wanted to like it, to prove everybody wrong and to claim that Eddie Murphy was back with a bang and with his funny bones throbbing like they never had. I wanted all that badly...until I got to see the movie and got sourly disappointed at such flagrant waste of resources.

Not that E.Murphy's name is a guarantee of quality cinema anymore but at least he used to have some dignity, usually top notch character actor Joe Pantoliano(just watch"Memento") also sets something close to a career low here. The visual side of the film is occasionally spectacular but nothing can overcome the increasingly frequent hollywoodian syndrome of having scripts and dialogs that look as if they were written by drunken apes, I mean zero intelligence, zero subtlety, zero coherence all amounting to one gigantic mess of half baked concepts that never gel into anything resembling a decent film.

To top it off for an action comedy the action part is feeble at best and the least said about the jokes the better(oh the endless horny robot jokes). It flopped for a reason, nobody in a right frame of mind would want to repeat his dose of Pluto Nash.


I should have known with this movie being shelved for two years, plus the fact that it lost something like 96 million dollars at the box office that this movie was going to be bad. Maybe that's what made me hit the 'buy' button on the dish, I just wanted to see how bad it was.

Needless to say, I wasn't disappointed, bad acting, lame plot, lousy special effects, and those are the good points!!! Being a HUGE John Cleese fan, even his little part couldn't save this wreck. So where did the 100 million they spent on this flick go? It sure as heck wasn't on the script. Eddie, please, we need a good movie from you soon, I'm sure the only reason they decided to release this was due to your outstanding performance in "Shrek", now that was a good movie. Save your money, and go buy a bucket of paint so you can watch it dry, at least it's more entertaining than any given minute of Pluto Nash.

3/10, only because of John Cleese and Ralphie from The Sopranos


I really don't know why Eddie Murphy signed on to do this movie. The script was terrible, and he didn't seem to be trying in the least. When I'm watching a movie that tries to be funny and fails, I can usually at least see where they were trying to make me laugh. He, however, I couldn't see one instance where Murphy was trying to be funny. I did laugh a few times, but it was at the surprisingly funny Randy Quaid as his robot Bruno, and the brief apperence of John Cleese.


There's maybe one laugh (if you're lucky) in this universally-panned disaster, but that doesn't mean THE ADVENTURES OF PLUTO NASH is a complete loss. Eddie Murphy is the title character, a reformed felon operating the most successful club in the "Little America" part of the Moon. But after he turns down an offer to sell to a shyster for $10 million, the laser bullets begin flying in his direction. Now he and gal pal Rosario Dawson, along with robot bodyguard Randy Quaid, are on the run.

Murphy is generally appealing, but his comic touch just doesn't jive with the sci-fi environment. The plot is at times incoherent and suffers from trying to roll comedy, action and excitement all into one. It's kind of amazing this clunker ever made it beyond the idea phase, particularly with talents such as Murphy and director Ron Underwood (CITY SLICKERS) involved.

What does PLUTO NASH have going for it? Though it's supposed to be a comedy, it actually works to some degree as a sci-fi adventure. The massive $100 million budget and futuristic setting make for some interesting visuals. And the picture moves along at a fair pace, with a tidy running time of 95 minutes.

For all its flaws, I would not use the term "boring" to describe PLUTO NASH. Hollywood has done much better, but it's also done far worse.


Holy cow, this was the best movie I've ever seen in years. Quaid was positively stunning as the android and this is easily Murphy's best performance ever, Oscar worthy indeed. Dawson looks like she is having the time of her life and all the money and production costs have paid off beautifully. This movie was hilarious, a five star performance from everyone, PLUTO NASH has instant classic written all over it.

Set in 2087, Pluto Nash has created a successful club and the Mafia want it, the easy way, or the hard way.

Still there? Honestly, PLUTO NASH is one of the worst movie I have come by. Nothing is funny. For an expensive budget, I could not find it anywhere. I was eagerly hoping for a director's commentary, but just subjected myself to heck anyway. There is even a 'twist' towards the end of the movie that could not save me from caring at all. Save your life and stay as far away as you can.


They've got this awesome cast list, you'd think it was an ER convention. It does have a few laughs. But this movie is worse than Battlefield Earth.

Spoilers?

It doesn't know whether it's a comedy or an action film. THe trailer treats it as a comedy. But the movie is clearly a fake action film. People die faster than a speeding bullit. 90% of the movie is not funny.

The premise is interesting, and with a better script writer it may have been something. But alas, we are left with a movie that even Eddie Murphy won't talk about.

4/10

Quality: 2/10 Entertainment: 6/10 Replayable: 3/10


With fear and apprehension of losing 98 minutes of my life, I was somewhat surprised by this film. Yes, I will admit this was a fairly bad film, but that was only in the fact it was NOT FUNNY! Technically, comedies have a certain degree of humor, yet this one seemed to lack in that department. Eddie Murphy was at his worst, and his lack of passion for the film seemed to spread to everyone else. While the CGI and set design was excellent, that seemed to be the only saving grace. I admit, it was not a total waste of time, but if it had been funnier and released last year, it might have made some money. At least it wasn't as bad as films like Cutthroat Island and The Postman in regards to box office intake.


There is absolutely nothing special about Pluto Nash. I was wondering for a time if I was going to run into the Mario Brothers as the set looked awfully familiar. The plot was poor, or maybe just nothing special. The sex jokes old, he saw her with big breasts and buttocks, why not give him something big? The only surprise in the whole thing was when Pluto Nash found out who he was up against. The movie was just Eddie Murphy doing the same old thing again. He could have just as well done it on earth in the 21th Century. At least he would have saved us a trip to the moon.


Pluto Nash is one of those films that wouldn't have been so bad - if it had been done 25 years ago with no stars and a smaller budget.

Now we have Eddie Murphy and a whole bunch of, albeit not A-list, solid supporting actors (Rosario Dawson excluded) aimlessly wandering about from one pointless scene to another. Part camp, part thriller, part adventure, part comedy, part sci-fi, part action part romance... and it still amounts to nothing.

Everything just falls flat, and when you see the result you can't help wondering what the actors were thinking as they acted out their scenes. Obviously, it must have been a case of monetary issues - and there's nothing wrong with making money, but it doesn't make it a good, or even entertaining film.

Eddie Murphy seems determined to ruin his career with utter crap like this. I mean, here we have a film that decides to take time out from the action to let the audience gawk at a french maid robot getting gradually undressed. If only the same level of attention had been given to the script as to the aforementioned robot's knickers and bra, then maybe it would have been less pointless. Still, the music was kind of catchy... [1/10]


This has to be the worst movie of 2002. As much as I like Eddie Murphy, I was very disappointed by this film. Pluto Nash should have stayed on the shelf and never come out. Stay away from this bomb at all costs.


Thank God that the people who produced this bomb are not working for the Taliban. This movie would be a Daisy Cluster. I feel bad that in our economy, which is always growing, I had to spend the equivalent of $5.00 US dollars. Next time I will log on and see the review first.


It takes something "Jurassic-ly" abominable and monstrous for me to get up and walk out of the theater room and you know, Pluto Nash did just that. All I can deduce from what I've seen is Eddie Murphy refusing to sell his club to the local Lunar mob (who also has some grandiose plan to takeover the Moon or whatever), and as a result, he and company are chased around for about 2 hours (I assume 2 hours). Add to it some of the lamest jokes ever exposed to celluloid since Carrot-Top and many eye-gouging, sleep-inducing twists and we have here a total disaster. No big surprise considering this was never screened for crtitcs, and shelved for about a year.

Oh well, I'm sorry if I can't divulge anymore info for you. My eyes and ears can only take so much.

1/10 for the first hour or so


Local radio station gave away free sneak preview tickets. Went with friends. We all agreed it's easily the worst film we've seen in a long time. Sure, we got in free, but we still want to bill Eddie Murphy for wasting our evening. What a turkey!


I saw this movie yesterday and was surprised to find only a few other people in the theater. It's shame too since everyone who was in the theater for BLUE CRUSH missed a fun, exciting, and hilarious sci-fi adventure. I later found out the movie was suppose to come out in April of 2001. I guess the long-delay gave people the feeling that this was a bad movie, but the truth is this isn't a bad movie. It's a great movie. It's full of fantastic special effects, intelligent humor, and good performances by the talented cast. This is a movie that I think will do better on video than it will in theaters, though I'd encourage people to go see it. It has a very original concept and proves that Ron Underwood is America's most underrated director. Four Stars.


What can I say? This time, Brook's missed. I am a zealous Al Brook fan. But this sloppily written movie should replace the "Virgin Mary" picture and have elephant dung smeared on it. Then it would be at least interesting. On several occasions, Brooks failed to use obvious plots and instead, put nothing. His over-acting added to this potion of dog-doodoo. And while Sharon Stone, for once, did a fine job as the spoiled Muse, Andie McDowell did not back up the female supporting role. Her lines were bad, her acting was bad. She was just- well, bad. Nothing good. And I love her. But she stunk up the movie theater. And I am ready to say that she did not stink it up alone, the guy behind me smelled too. I am a disappointed movie goer when Al Brooks fails to give me pleasure. And this time, he failed.


Albert Brooks is funny. A good comedic actor and voice-over talent. Some of the funniest scenes involve Mr. Brooks. But what a total piece of doodoo is this.

Why? 1. PRETENTIOUS. I hate movies that show people living perfect, rich lifestyles with syrupy families. How many shots of Albert driving a $75k black Mercedes to his mansion in BH do we need? 2. Shameless cameos by middle-aged bloated actors. Gee, aren't I cool? I'm making a movie about the movie business, wanna do a walk on? We'll nosh after wards. Don't schwitz it! 3. Sharon Stone. Is there a more selfish, untalented actress who forced her way on to the screen that this lady? Yeesh. She's stinks as an actress and her looks are the kind of scary, barren ice queen variety that reminds me of a parasite who sucks the life force out of stupid men in Porsche's. Hideous choice.

4. The story. Gee, do I care that a Hollywood screenwriter is having writer's block and can't crank out the same drivel and trash that is making America even dumber so he can support his completely vapid, boring and lazy trophy wife (nothing against Andie McDowell just talking about the story line kids)? Not to mention the weak 2nd story line of his wife becoming a cookie making sensation! Wow how novel. Another yenta wife of a rich Hollywood star making cookies! Writing a cookbook! Wow! How super! Never mind that it happens in second. Never mind that trying to sell a new chocolate chip cookie in a completely saturated market would be harder than achieving cold fusion in your garage.

Anyhoo.

5. Albert Brooks is one arrogant guy. He loves to be the smartest guy in the room, doesn't he? He thinks he's Einstein. Yeah, I know.

6. Did I mention how completely selfish, arrogant, phony and unsympathetic the characters and the entire situation is? Just checking.

If you want to see Albert Brooks at his best, see Defending Your Life, Lost in America, Broadcast News or Finding Nemo. But forget The Muse.

Unless you want to waste over an hour watching obnoxiously insipid rich people cavort around LA whining about their little club of film making members. Ha ha ha. NOT.


I went to the film with high hopes, being an Albert Brooks fan and truly enjoying his humour. I was sorely disappointed though in the production values and the performance of the terrible Sharon Stone. There were so many glaring continuity errors and technical glitches that what ever humour remained in the production was quickly lost. Here's hoping for a better effort from Brooks the next time. Jeff Bridges is totally wasted in the movie!!


Run, don't walk...away from this movie. If you happen to waste your money and decide to see this film, you will be running out of the theater within the first hour.

The plot is as sophisticated as the title is long.

Andie MacDowell was at her absolute worst. If this is an indication of her future work, she needs to stick with the TV adds.

Someone must have owed someone else a big favor, because this film should never have been produced.


I found this movie to be up there in my top 5 worst movies I've seen. Whereas Hercules in New York (one of Arnold Schwarzenegger's first films) can pass it off as being an amusing look at Arnold's struggle to grasp the English language and succeed in being funny, the Muse is trying to be funny and failing badly.

It's Hollywood clap-trap at its worst. Sharon Stone is uninspiring in attempts to form some kind of character as one of the main protagonists in the movie. Jeff Bridges is disappointing as well. Albert Brooks is a pain to watch, almost cringe-worthy, his character seems to be a personification of himself which isn't a good thing.

This film seems like it was written by someone who obviously had writers block until they suddenly thought they'd write a film about writers block. Confusing? Well maybe I could have worded that better but it's a film about nothing much in particular, it goes nowhere and the jokes are very weak.

I found myself waiting for the film to end and when it ended I was half in the mind to return the film to the video rental store and demand my money back!

Well you have my thoughts on this now.


Albert Brooks should have let life imitate art and hired himself a muse before deciding to torture us with this crap. A great cast (including the usually much, much funnier Mr. Brooks)and a solid concept are wasted here. All of those directors (Reiner, Scorsese, Cameron) must have owed Brooks huge favors ... there is no other way that they would have agreed to cameos here. The reviewer who called on us to take a vomit bag was very right indeed.


Normally, I like insider type movies, and did enjoy some of the cameo appearances of movie directors.

However, I found the Albert Brooks character too whiney and predictable. He jumps at the idea of a Muse and potential salvation way too quickly, as if he has read the script ahead of time. Sharon Stone played a spoiled brat, and did not provide any inspiration to a character 500 other actresses could have played the same way in 500 other movies with spoiled brats. Andie McDowell's character accepted the story of a Muse vs an affair way too quickly with too little proof. I know my wife wouldn't so easily accept another woman, and then let her sleep in my bed too!

The dialog was boring, not inspired as some have said of Albert Brooks' abilities, the soundtrack was grating (did not fit the scenes well at all), and the casting less than ideal. Albert could have used a real MUSE for this story.


For a hard of hearing french, watching an American movie without subtitle is "mission impossible". I don't understand what people say, so it's like everybody is mute. So, have laughs: here's my debriefing of what I have understood:

Mr Brooks is a famous director (or writer?) who gets fired by a studio! Why? I don't know. Desperate, he believes to have an appointment with Spielberg but meets another one. Hopefully, the real Bridges gives him help with the address of his muse. If this muse brings inspiration, she needs a lot of things and attention. He works about of script about fish but it's her wife that benefits much, becoming a successful cookie maker. What does the muse says exactly: I don't know.

If the dialogs were hard to follow, the music wasn't and for a Elton John composition, it is really surprising good. But it is used to fill the walks or car errands!

Finally, it's a pity to understand so little because it seems to be a good comedy about Hollywood. The cameos are funny even if I think that making a movie about movie lacks of inspiration! Where is the muse?


Increasingly there are two kinds of movies: 1. Movies that you see and really enjoy because they offer something new to you and 2. Movies that are hyped so much and reveal so much of the movie in trailers and talk show clips that seeing them is a waste of time.

Muse is very definitely in category 2!! I had seen every really funny line and surprise cameo before I ever even walked in the theater. Unless you missed all the trailers and hype, save your money. On second thought, save your money for video. The big screen doesn't do a thing to save this dull, flat effort.

Of course, McDowell and Stone are pleasant on the eyes but their considerable talents are wasted here!


Albert Brooks still knows how to spin off a great one-liner but something has happened to this man since the great "Defending Your Life". He seems angry at everyone and everything with only a handful of compassionate moments reserved for those who can't do him any harm (in this case, his children). Andie MacDowell's sinusoidal career moves on, this performance being on the good side of average (her next will invariably be on the bad). The greatest pleasure this movie has to offer is Sharon Stone. She perfectly portrays the flighty, carefree lifestyle of a daughter of Zeus. It is for her luminescence and the two or three funny jokes (plus great cameos by James Cameron and Martin Scorsese) that I give The Muse 3/10.


Brooks plays a neurotic screenwriter who's lost his writing "edge" and finds a real-life muse to put the spark back into his work.

Speaking of "edge", it's evident Brooks has lost his with this film. He tries to poke fun at Hollywood, but its mostly very light-hearted, a bit disjointed, and only occasionally funny. Brooks has done some fine films in the past (Broadcast News, Defending Your Life), but this isn't one of them. Some interesting cameos from a variety of directors, and a good comedic turn by Sharon Stone just can't save this movie. For a better, more cynical take on Hollywood, see The Player.


Albert Brooks, who is normally pin-point-perfect in his portrayal (both through his writing and acting) of what can best be described as highbrow deadpan, has given sad evidence of having lost his edge.

I use the term "edge" on purpose, of course, for in The Muse, that is what his character, Steven Phillips, is bemoaning his loss of: What all of Hollywood refers to as his "edge." Struggling to get it back, he seeks the help of a horribly miscast Sharon Stone as The Muse. Ms. Stone, never one to be accused of being an actress of great talent or subtlety, sashays through this mess with casual flippancy. Were there any second takes?

But one expects little from her anyway.

The big disappointment is Albert Brooks. Where was the "protective ice" scene from Mother? The restaurant scene with Meryl Streep from Defending You Life? Those were great, inspired, insightful moments. Hilarious, yes. But hard hitting and poignant too. In The Muse we get Mr. Brooks' Steven crashing into a hulking hotel security guard and dropping salad all over his face. Complete with a painful cut to him, on his back, on the floor, spitting out a piece of tomato. It was a Leslie Nielsen moment...not an Albert Brooks moment.

Let's hope Mr. Brooks has, since the completion of this mess, found his Muse. His is a voice we need to hear more of.


This stinker rightly deserves to be in the bottom of the barrel. I have given a rating of 1 only to five movies ever (even Clone Wars doesn't get this honor), movies so repulsively bad your very will to live deteriorates (shallow blockbusters usually get away with at least a 3 or 4). This movie is a 1 if there ever was one.

Let's get a few things straight. Barring that I haven't seen too many movies from the good ole 30's, 40's and 50's, this movie is the most sexist movie I have ever seen. If American males had any "equipment" they wouldn't have anything to do with any women that liked this movie, period! I don't even want to talk about guys who LIKED this movie. The basic premise is that men are incapable and should be treated like dirt, women are powerful and should do whatever the heck they want, norms of human decency aside, and that this is (supposed to be) cute and funny. Blah!

Worst of all, the movie is just painfully dull. It is definitely not a guy flick, it is not even a chick flick (by its content it would definitely be a retarded 2-year-old flick). It is not a movie for anyone. Nothing of any significance happens in the movie. Pure boredom.

The premise of the movie is simple, to understate it. A hapless scriptwriter struggles to come up with inspiration for a script. Being that he lives in a fairytale, he is talked into hiring a muse. Except, as one tentatively suspects, this muse is more spoiled than one-year-old milk and has expensive tastes, to put it mildly. So the confused and insecure scriptwriter wastes his life savings so that the muse can reside in a luxurious hotel and be properly stocked with crystal and caviar. The muse doesn't really do anything for him; her presence is supposed to inspire him. And just when you think this is segueway into the meat of the story it turns out that the movie never really moves anywhere from that point.

Yeah, one more thing, the muse spreads the "virus" into the head of the writers wife and she gets the idea of emancipating herself from her husband by opening her baking factory (mwahahahaha!). Naturally, she is an instant hit. Oh, but the guy does somehow write his scenario in the end. This movie makes about as much sense as someone's invasion of Iraq.

Cheers.

Rating 1/10

Scale: 10 MASTERPIECE, 9 Excellent, 8 Good, 7 OK, 6 Adequate, 5 Average, 4 Mediocre, 3 Poor, 2 Bad, 1 HORRIBLE


Albert Brooks spends two hours whining and feeling sorry for himself, and noone else helps this script. Various semi-celebrities walk in and out of the scenes, for no reason at all - it seems the director was grabbing whoever was walking by to fill in the time. Skip it.