I watched this to see Fred Astaire dance and Cyd Charisse to smile and show off her legs and dancing talents. I got very little of the above. Astaire, as "Steve Canfield," sang a lot more than he danced, and his singing was always "fair, at best."

Charisse's character, "Ninotchka Yoschenko," mostly pouted throughout the film and spoke with a stupid accent, not exactly appealing. It also takes away from the film when you know someone else is singing, not her!

To be fair, some of their work here together just makes you marvel at them. Perhaps another look - this time with a CinemaScope widescreen DVD picture, - would make me appreciate this movie more.

This is a musical remake of the 1939 Greta Garbo film "Ninotochka." I don't think either is all that great but given the choice to watch either again, I'd take the Garbo film, even though it's always good to watch Astaire and Charisse stepping out, so to speak.


Those who think that Cole Porter and the Cold War make strange bedfellows aren't going to have their minds changed by this movie. It's a bizarre mishmash of MGM kitsch, Red-baiting, and homosexual archness, adapted from the stage musical. It also must be the dullest movie ever made in celebration of fun. I don't know what the stage version did (it's never revived) but this movie has one idea (Communism boring, Capitalism fun!) and it keeps beating us on the head with it while showing us around out a lot of Louis Whatever hotel suites that few Americans in 1957 could afford either. 1...2...3...what are we fighting for! (Money, evidently.) The propaganda would be more persuasive if Charisse didn't look sexier in her Worker's Black Nylons than she does in the silks that mark her transformation from dull comrade to fun capitalist-- and if those silks didn't actually appear to be nylons.

For Komic Relief, there are Three Komrades-- they're the Three Stooges. The 'Ninotchka' (Charisse) is innocent of kissing-- she's like the native girls in '30s South Seas flicks. I guess they didn't do THAT behind the Iron Curtain. Perhaps the relevant passages were blacked out of her state translation of THE SUN ALSO RISES. We wait, and wait, and wait while Astaire sings and Janis Paige (she's trying to be Jean Hagen) chews the scenery, for Astaire and Charisse to dance. The dance numbers are very good and show off Astaire's unending quest to try out new ideas. Shame the rest of the movie didn't do so.

This period piece is useful as a stored version of the Broadway show but it's watchable only if you occasionally use fast-forward.


If it hadn't got caught up in the political rhetoric of the time. The propaganda of Russia - bad - and "freedom" - good - is so caricaturized, it is reminiscent of the awfully silly musical movie the main characters are producing in the film. Sometimes the music and dancing can save such a movie, but this one contains mostly snoozers and losers. The cast does a good deal for the picture, but they can't save it.


Yeah, this is another somewhat typical "big bad critters" movie.

Yet something is a little charming about this and the original Tremors. It's not intense or riveting... it won't keep you on the edge of your seat. But it's enjoyable to turn on while paying your bills or doing the dishes.

Probably Michael Gross' acting and to some degree Susan Cuang's (nice and spunky - I liked her) made it enjoyable. The characters weren't deep but they were watchable, which is a lot more than can be said about a lot of stereotypical archetypes from Hollywood which TRY to be more.

Nice, unassuming movie which doesn't try to be more than it is.


Tremors 3: Back to Perfection starts in El Chaco in Argentina where Graboid expert & war nut Burt Gummer (Michal Gross) has been hired to wipe out an infestation of Shriekers. Upon his return to to Perfection Valley in Nevada where he lives Burt finds things have changed, Jack Sawyer (Shawn Christian) is running Graboid tours & a greedy property developer is trying to buy all the land in Perfection to build ranches. Then suddenly a new wave of Graboids appear, Burt warns the town & convinces them to help him kill them before they turn into Shriekers. However Federal Agents step in & forbid the killing of any Graboids due to the endangered species act which gives them the opportunity to become Shriekers & then after that stage they transform into yet another different type of creature which Burt has to deal with...

Directed by Brent Maddock this was the second sequel to the excellent & likable 90's monster flick Tremors (1990) which is generally considered a bit of a classic, the sequels however thus far are a long way from classic status & while Tremors II: Aftershocks (1996) was decent enough Tremors 3: Back to Perfection continues the downward spiral of diminishing returns. The script follows Tremors II: Aftershocks quite closely with the initial Graboid reappearance & then about half way through just as in Tremors II: Aftershocks a new different type of creature is revealed & I don't quite know what to make of them to be honest. They look silly for a start & their ability to light their own farts to take off & fly is even more ridiculous in practice than in theory, the sight of them launching themselves off the ground using lighted farts is just as lowbrow & juvenile as it comes. I am not sure it if was done for comic effect or not but that's the impression that comes across & even calling them Ass Blasters says a lot about the mentality of the script & concept. As with Tremors II: Aftershocks things get out of hand & a bunch of survivors have to fight for their lives against the odds, you know the score. The chemistry between Kevin Bacon & Fred Ward was vital to the success of the original & while Ward came back for Tremors II: Aftershocks even he is missing form this & it's up to minor character Burt Gummer to step up to the plate & carry the film, to be fair he is quite amusing at times & at least his sidekick Jack Sawyer is quite likable & not some silly comic relief buffoon. There's nothing here we haven't seen before, the Shriekers are not seen at all apart from the opening sequence & at almost 100 minutes long it does drag at times & the constant silly humour & one liners does get tiresome & repetitive quite quickly.

The lessening of the budget means that Tremors 3: Back to Prediction uses footage from the original Tremors & the CGI computer work isn't the worst around but it does look a bit shoddy at times especially when the main monster looks so silly. Apparently this was made as a way to sell the subsequent Tremors (2003) TV series which ran for thirteen episodes. A few character's from the original Tremors return here for a bit of novelty value, Nancy, Miguel & Melvin all reprise their roles. With the PG rating don't expect any gore & there's a low body count too.

The production values are alright & it's well made, imagine a polished Sci-Fi Channel 'Creature Feature' & your not far off. The acting is OK, Michael Gross is amusing & has his character nailed down while the minor character's are all ably played.

Tremors 3: Back to Perfection is alright for what it is, it's another creature feature with an especially silly creature, there are a few trademark Tremors moments & character's but you can see the series is getting a little bit tired. Followed by the TV series & Tremors 4: The Legend Begins (2004) while Tremors V: The Thunder from Down Under (2010) is listed as in production.


As a real fan of Tremors 1 I made the mistake to trust all the good reviews on this site. But believe me guys: This one has nothing to offer (well - except a realy strange resurection scene). Unfortunately I bought the DVD. Don´t even rent it even if you feel greedy on a monster movie - watch Tremors No. 1 instead or get "Octalus" or whatever else there is on the shelve.


This is loosely based on events that occurred during Frank Sinatra's tour of Australia where, after referring to a female reporter as a "two-bit hooker" he was black-banned by the local unions.

Sadly, what could have been an interesting look at a clash of cultures, values and strong-willed individuals descends into something resembling a comedy sketch put on by a country repertory company.

Dennis Hopper does a stirling job as Sinatra, with very little directorial support. After a while you start to believe he is Ol' Blue Eyes. But virtually all the other characters are painted in the broad brush strokes of low farce.

Joel Edgerton plays the hapless promoter as a dim-witted surfer with a tendency to fall over or get beaten up in every second scene. Portia de Rossi is so loathsome in her role as the maligned journalist that I found myself cheering for Sinatra and the mob for most of the movie.

And, in a masterstroke of bizarre casting and makeup, David Field blithely appears on screen looking about as much like Bob Hawke as my mum. Moreover, he seems to have made a conscious decision not to even attempt Hawke's accent, nor any of his well known mannerisms. The overall effect is as if the producers had decided to cast Dame Edna Everage in the role and hope that no-one would notice.

Almost every Australian character in the film comes across as either a bumbling half-wit or a self-serving thug. I'm surprised Tourism Australia didn't try to have it banned. The sole exception is the delightful Rose Byrne who, as the love interest/voice of sanity, seems to have been beamed in from a parallel universe.

Lamenting the state of the Australian film industry is a national pastime. I think much of it stems from the industry's long love affair with 'daggyness' for its own sake. Who finds this quirky and endearing any more? It's just embarrassing, and the rest of the world obviously thinks so too. This film, with its woeful dialogue, wooden 'school play level' direction, zero character motivation and absurd plot, admirably demonstrates the problem.


When this opened in London - today - I attended the first performance and found myself alone. I had reservations just from the casting, I mean come on, Dennis Hopper, the epitome of hippie/rock playing Sinatra, the epitome of sophisticated cool? What next, Eminem as Cliff Richard. I hoped at least for a generous amount of Sinatra singing but even that was 1) strictly rationed and 2) performed by a Sinatra imitator and then, to add insult to injury, the end credits roll over Elvis Presley's Tutti Frutti. What passes for a plot centres on the infamous Australian tour of 1974 when Sinatra spoke his mind as usual and wound up a virtual prisoner in his hotel room until honour had been satisfied. A sub-plot that threatens to hi-jack the movie involves the young Rock promoter who brought Sinatra to Australia and a girl who had fancied him since they were kids. Basically we're talking rubbish. I thought Baz Lurhman's Moulin Rouge was about as low as you could get but here that Australian has competition from another. Dire.


This is not an offensively bad or even plain bad film, it just isn't very good either.

The performance from Joeol Edgerton is good enough, and Portia pulls off a good Ozzie accent but Dennis Hopper and Mel seem ridiculously badly cast and frankly (hehe) make you hate Frank Sinatra from the get go.

The plot is slower than a sloth running through molasses and nothing really happens - no tension, no real antagonist/protagonist struggle, just bumbles through what I believe is a semi-accurate take on the 74 tour of Oz by Frank.

If it's the only thing left on the shelf then it passes 2 hours, otherwise grab something else to spend your time with.


ALL THE WAY (aka THE NIGHT WE CALLED IT A DAY) is a docudrama of sorts: it is based on a true incident that happened in Australia in 1974 and still is grumbled about today. Why this flimsy film was made in the first place seems only due to lasting resentments on the part of the Australians at the arrogant and crude behavior of Frank Sinatra when he made an appearance in Sydney during a world tour: he insulted the press, caused the labor unions to react in defiance by cordoning off his connection to the world outside his darkened hotel suite and demanded an apology from the star, an act that Sinatra refused to do.

Writers Peter Clifton and Michael Thomas have attempted to make this boring incident viable by revealing the background events and characters surrounding the event. They have created Rod Blue (Joel Edgerton) as a failing show promoter who puts all his money and future into assuring the house for the concert. Australia loved Sinatra: this seemed his ticket to ride. Frank Sinatra (Dennis Hopper playing Dennis Hopper) arrives and one of the Press who alienates Sinatra is Rod's girl Hillary (Portia di Rossi) and when she asks inappropriate questions, Sinatra calls her a hooker and there begins the furor of the Aussies. The people are incensed at Sinatra's foul mouth and insensitivity and boycott the concert. The Labor Unions, representing the people of Australia, strike so that Sinatra is trapped in his hotel without light, water, food, room service, etc. Rod Blue's surefire scheme seems destined to fail.

Sinatra is accompanied by his squad of hefty goons and his current paramour Barbara Marx (Melanie Griffith) and it is Barbara who intervenes and helps salvage the situation. She encourages Rod's mousy assistant Audrey (Rose Byrne) to believe in Rod whom she secretly loves and coerces Sinatra into negotiations with the people he has offended.Yes, it all works out in the end - Sinatra does his concert, Rod makes money and the audience appears satisfied and enthusiastic.

Sound like a fairly boring film? Well, it is. It is partially saved by the entertainment of watching Hopper lip sync Sinatra songs as sung by Tom Burlinson, by Edgerton's commitment to make his hero Rod a credible human being, and by seeing Melanie Griffith looking terrific in beautiful gowns. Otherwise, despite the casts' best efforts, this is a forgettable film.


I was extremely disappointed in this film.

The acting was unconvincing, and the message of the film"this could be everyone's century"is glib and sweet enough to give one cavities.

The dilemma between Gregory Peck's and Dorothy Maguire's characters could have been intriguing but it is so bogged down by a too-sappy-for-words love story that it never gets the chance.

I can see that back in the 1947 this film would have been daring, which is probably why it won the Best Picture Oscar. But the historical value of the film did not save it for me. By the standards of what makes a classic, this film never manages to be more than mediocre.

The only good things about this film are the scenes between Philip and his secretary (June Havoc delivers her shockingly hypocritical lines perfectly) and the fact that we get to see the handsome Gregory Peck a lot.


The worst blue screen you'll ever see in a feature film. Dutched, off kilter camera angles, jerky, idiotic camera operation, poorly framed compositions, blown out exposures, thrown focus--you'd think between the "DP", the director and all the "lighting assistants and ACs" listed in the credits, one of these guys would know how to look at a digital viewfinder and compose a proper shot. A sound mix done by a deaf person, with FX simply missing, music overlay hoping to be mistaken as a sound design and so many poor dialogue recordings, you wished they would've used more of their poor-man's ADR. There is no talent here. None, only victims--the poor actors and actresses that got duped to be in this debacle. And technical problems aside, the film is the most wonderful example of complete self-indulgent, nonsensical, backwards, leap-of-faith egotism--how this Erwin guy got people to actually put themselves into this, I'll never understand. The only thing I could maybe understand is if Erwin used his casting sessions and "principal photography" as an elaborate Midwestern, adult-singles-dating service. That might explain something. Something . . .


Vixen Highway looks someone got their friends together and decided to make a movie. The entire film is amateurish. Besides a bad script (was there a script?)and bad acting, parts of the films are overexposed, there are sound problems and the film editing was laughable. Most of the characters had no point to them and appeared to be thrown in just to take up space. Women, for no apparent reason, dressed provocatively; even a policewoman walking around with her shirt open. The only two who can act were Dave Quimby and the actor who played Bobby Brazzel (I notice that his character is not in the credits on IMDb, is it because he doesn't want to admit he was in it?) but even they couldn't shine in this mire of quicksand.


Two Americans do unbelievable heroics just as France is being occupied by the Germans in the Second World War - and before the United States had entered the conflict. This is the sort of film that irritates some of us sensitive Brits, though your reviewer didn't mind Tyrone Power being in the RAF and Humphrey Bogart being at El Alamein. The duo depart on a highly dangerous mission (apparently involving a "Satan bug")with the minimal of briefing, exchange wisecracks as they descend into France by parachute, and link up with several gypsies, including a redundant girl.(Oh yes,the two are seen off by a senior officer who is driven up to their plane in a car with headlights blazing; presumably the Yanks didn't think the blackout applied to them.) The two manage to penetrate a high-security laboratory - and I do admit that they have a novel way of getting their explosives in. Everything then seems to go off with clockwork precision.

The only redeeming features are some pleasant countryside and some good props - a couple of old vehicles and an impressive drainage system.


This film lost all appeal for me when I started laughing about five minutes into it. Was that really the New York city skyline being used as a French seaport in 1940? The World Trade Centers were even there! We rewound and yes, that was supposed to be a French seaport in 1940. The film was made in 1978, the Towers completed in 1976. Really, really, really big mistake. I guess the audience wasn't supposed to be intelligent enough to know the difference.

And that announcers' voice! What was up with that? I know he was providing background information but it was just plain annoying. We bought this for $5 thinking it was a good Tom Selleck movie. My comment to my husband was actually "it's a Tom Selleck movie, it can't be all that bad". It was that bad and even worse. Although after seeing the New York city skyline as France, we turned it off after we stopped laughing.


I have to say that I did not watch the whole movie - I just couldn't! What with US army personnel parading around London in uniform before the US had entered the war; the stock footage of the 1970s era London Ambulance rushing the agent to the hospital; the "military" DC3 in civilian paint scheme; the Rolls driving around with headlights full on in the blackout; the "French Port" with lights blazing, also in the blackout; the "Social Club" in London that had both male and female members; the two "heroes" jumping out of the aircraft without a jump-master; and... Well, I could go on and on but I think you get the point. I just could not take this seriously and, in all fairness to the writers, I don't think it was meant to be taken seriously. But, you would have thought that they would have tried to make this wartime "buddy" movie a little more authentic. My advice is to not waste your time on this movie. Your time would be better spent sorting your sock drawer.


In this uninspired, made-for-television, buddy picture, James Whitmore, Jr., and Tom Selleck portray two U.S. Army/Air Force officers ordered to destroy a winery in France that conceals a laboratory for the development of a lethal toxin that could wipe out half of the world in six months. Well-known writers Stephen J. Cannell of "The A-Team" and Philip DeGuere of "Simon & Simon" have contrived a formulaic, half-baked World War II secret mission behind enemy lines that is neither convincing nor exciting. The gimmick that the heroes rely on to deliver the explosives is the best idea in this lackluster adventure opus.

This 77-minute melodrama spends its opening 14 minutes providing exposition to set up its plot. During that opening quarter hour, we are treated to an "Untouchables" style narrator and loads of second-unit shots mixed in with artwork and stock footage. We see a German E-Boator what passes for oneoff the French command intercept French radio signals. A fight between two agents ensues over possession of the toxin and the vial crashes into the floor and releases a nasty plume of smoke. The Allied agent suffers terribly while the German escapes. Eventually, doctors in England treat the Allied agent but he

Our brash, fun-loving heroes parachute into France. Actually, Selleck's character boots Whitmore out of the plane and follows him down. A colorful band of traveling gypsies picks them up and serves as their cover during the trip to the winery. Our heroes have no money to pay for their escort so the gypsies appropriate Selleck's West Point ringyeah, right, what was he thinking when he brought it on this missionand Whitmore's watch. Little do they know that the Germans are racing ahead of them for the same destination. Perennial bad guy Albert Paulson commands the Axis intruders as a German colonel. Selleck masquerades as a German officer in order to enter the grounds of the winery. Whitmore taps into the communications line and calls ahead to German headquarters in the winery and inquires about an officer. The radio operator reports that no such officer is available. Whitmore complains that he should be notified to report back to him as soon as possible. This clever ruse helps Selleck effect entry since the Germans are expecting him. He fixes up things so that the plumbing backs up. The German colonel demands that the problem be dealt with in short order. Whitmore pretends to be a plumber taking a roadside break when German motorcycle troops discover his presence and escort him to the winery. As it turns out, this is exactly what our heroes want. Meantime, the Germans discover the gypsies in the woods, but they miss the strong man. He opens the water lines and sends metal tubes streaking through the lines. Inside the tubes are explosive devices. After he sends Whitmore all the explosive tubes, he drives his wagon off, only to be intercepted by German troops that take him prisoner. In the winery, Whitmore enters the vault where the vials of toxin chemicals are stored. Before he fiddles with the vials, he slips explosives to Selleck who has relieved the guards in front of the vault. Selleck and he set their charges and on the way out of the winery, they spot the gypsy father and daughter as well as the Germans escorting the strong man in the wagon.

The last quarter hour involves their predictable heroics at rescuing the gypsies. Whitmore and Selleck succeed in their mission and the winery is blown sky-high. The "Untouchables" narrator furnishes us with a history lesson about the Italians declaring war on France and the Germans marching on Paris.

Whitmore and Selleck play reasonably well off each other, but they are thwarted by embarrassing dialogue, especially when they are voicing themselves over in long shots. Veteran TV lenser Enzo A. Martinelli makes everything look good in this otherwise forgettable fare. Among the many anachronisms present here is Tom Selleck's haircut that was right for the 1970s but all wrong for 1940. I don't think that I've ever seen a German officer with a mustache the size of the one that Selleck wears. "The Gypsy Warriors" plays like a World War II version of the "The Wild, Wild West" with Whitmore doing all the dirty work and Selleck striking tough guy poses.


The Laughing Dead is an incredibly cheesy low budget film without any value. It handles about a bus-load of social misfits (guided by a priest who lost his faith and impregnated a foxy nun) on a sightseeing tour around Aztec ruins in Mexico. There, they're awaited by a bunch of demons, zombies and mad-raving creatures in order to kill them during the 'Death Festival'. The first 45 minutes of 'The Laughing Dead' is very tedious viewing since they're presenting us a character drawing nobody really cares about. The priest and the nun are re-united and he learns he's the father of a bratty kid. There's no intrigue and the acting is very lame so the first half is very tough to sit through. After that, The Laughing Dead turns into a joyful splatter movie with cheesy make-up effects and a repulsive amount of blood. People's heads are chopped off (and used as a basketball), buses drive over torsos and one poor bastards even has his own arm shoved down his throat!! The film is bad and extremely amateurish, but there's a market for this kind of crap. So, if you're in to gory nonsense you can check this one out.


yep.i gave it a 1/10,but in a good way-if you know what i mean..well this is a totally rotten movie,splatter with funny things happening all the time..call some friends,get drunk and have the time of your life watching this monsterpiece


I have seen a lot of films, including some of the more legendarily poor ones. But this, an alternative-stylee poor film, is infinitely worse than anything that I have ever seen in my entire life.

I am not going to spoil it for you, but the end will make you think that you are under the influence of some form of halluconogenic substance. Not the frequently-mentioned baskebtall match, but there is another element that beggars belief, more so than any single event in any other film ever.

There is so much that can be said about this film, but I'm going to keep it brief. If you can find it, get it. It is so bad it's pricelessly funny. I have been trawling the bad film archives for awhile now, and nothing can top this.

Even if you have never delved into bad films before, try renting this, and prepare for the time of your life. It might sound like a hollow recommendation coming from one small man on the internet out there somewhere, but I guarantee when more people see this film, it will become a legendarily cult bad film, in the same way 'Troll 2' and 'Manos' are now. It deserves that status, but isn't popular enough, so I implore all bad horror fans and good comedy fans alike to search out this film and give it an opportunity, since it will change the way you view films forever.

I've tried to omit spoiler content, because I fear that extended spoilers may ruin the fun! So go out, take a chance (just this once!) and pick up a copy of 'The Laughing Dead'.

I guarantee you won't regret it, and I don't know what further guarantee I can give than that.


i haven't felt so much pain just by gritting my teeth and sitting through a movie in a long, loooong time. i've seen worse movies - movies that were less inspired and movies that were more wholly inept - but only a handful, if that, were even nearly as painful. i think what really ruined this for me is that it had some vaguely good/okay concepts, but they were so horribly fleshed out that i just kept yelling at my vcr. the dialog was horrible, the acting was pretty damned bad, and the general premise was fairly weak (though if anything else had existed to keep this movie afloat, maybe it would have been salvageable).

there's nothing i hate more than when characters in horror movies catch on too quickly, and these people were freaking savants in that regard, especially toward the end. oh, wait, there's one thing i hated more than that - the characters themselves! i've rarely seen a more unlikable bunch. i hated them all. even worse, the only two good actors (well actor and actress) in the film had the two most annoying characters out of all.

the dialog hurts, it's so bad and so contrived (did i mention poorly delivered?). the only good points are 1) it ended before 90 minutes were up, and 2) the zombies, which appeared for about ten minutes at the end to play basketball, at least had good makeup. i don't think i can really give unmitigated credit to this movie for anything else.


This is the 1hr 30min story about 4 guys that fell asleep watching a movie they never could imagine falling asleep to. Well this movie was all that it shouldn't be: 1.Good story 2.Good acting 3.Good special effects (well they weren't tha bad actually)Well anyway just a lame excuse for a movie, splatter movie, horror movie, you name it. The thing is: WE ALL FELL ASLEEP! Alright you get that? Not a good review for a movie when you can say that. 1/10


I'm sorry to sound like a Scrouge, but this TNT film was a holiday stinker!

The film's premise had good potential: From overseas, an American GI in World War II sends his high school sweetheart a marriage proposal and an engagement ring, which unfortunately are lost in the mail. When the letter and the ring are miraculously discovered forty years later, one would expect that the revelation would clear up the mystery and end the long-standing feud between two Italian families.

But when Alicia (Lainie Kazan) learns about the letter and the ring sent by her former beau Nick (Tony Lo Bianco), her inexplicable response is to continue to be angry at him! This made no sense because it wasn't Nick's fault that the letter and the ring were lost. The subplot of the couple in the next generation (Patricia Heaton and Vincent Spano) also seemed forced and not believable. There were moments in this film that resembled French farce, then turned immediately into Greek tragedy!

The dialogue was terrible, and the cast seemed to be reading their lines, as opposed to performing the action and connecting with each other in their relationships. I almost wished that the actors could have improvised the scenes around the basic romantic premise, instead of forcing the emotional life and giving us the impression that they were reading the insipid lines from cue cards.

Before the film began, TNT offered this tagline as a teaser: "The holidays are for bringing people together." As it turned out, that line was better than any of the scripted dialogue in the film, and the best character was the grandma mainly because she was mute!


This thing makes Malibu's Most Wanted look like American Beauty. I'm being generous in giving it a 3, but only because I chuckled a few times at some of the 80's references. This movie has one thing going for it, Michael Rosenbaum. He is incredibly funny in it, and I'm sure most of his stuff was improvised, because it's the only bright spot in a badly directed, badly lit, badly everything turkey that should've been released in January or February. Rosenbaum has fun with his role, and he even manages to reference Oliver Stone's 'The Doors' if you can believe it. Skip it and put it on your Netflix list if you're really bored.


The way I figure it, it takes about a good twenty years for a decent nostalgia trend to kick in. That's just about the point at which the youngsters of a particular era will have experienced enough of adult life to start them pining away for the "good old days" of their pleasantly carefree and invariably misspent youth. In the 1970's, audiences escaped back to the more innocent and halcyon days of the 1950's through works such as "American Graffiti" and "Happy Days," while in the '80's, it was the '60's that got replayed, via "The Wonder Years" and "The Right Stuff." In a similar way, "That '70's Show" came to define nostalgia for the young adults of the '90's. Now, apparently, it is the '80's that are making a comeback, as those who were kids in that decade begin to edge their way ever so reluctantly into middle age. That's where the comedy, "Kickin' it Old Skool," comes in.

The premise of the movie is as follows: in 1986, a ten-year-old named Justin Schumacher suffered a concussion at one of his break dance competitions that left him in a coma for twenty years. When he finally returns to consciousness two decades later, he discovers, much to his dismay, that the world has moved on without him, and that everything that was once important and familiar to him - from the fashions to the technology to the music - is now hopelessly "un-cool" and out-of-date. After he learns that his parents will soon be going bankrupt if they can't find a way to pay for all the medical expenses they incurred while caring for their comatose son, Justin convinces his old break dancing buddies to come out of retirement and enter a contest, the winners of which will receive a whopping $100,000 in prize money.

There really is very little point to "Kickin' it Old Skool" beyond providing an opportunity for us to laugh at all those pop culture trends and icons that we thought were so cool at the time but that seem merely quaint and funny to us today. Thus, we get the big hair, the head bands, the glitter, the parachute-pants, the synthesizer-laden music, the boom boxes, the Michael Jackson moves, the "What yu' talking' 'bout, Willis?" quips that, for some at least, have come to define the era. Unfortunately, that is hardly a sufficient foundation upon which to build a quality movie, and "Kickin' it Old Skool" ultimately emerges as a wan, not-very-funny cross between "Footloose" and all those inexplicably popular flicks in which a youngster mysteriously wakes up in an adult person's body. Although it's genial and harmless, "Kickin' it Old Skool" suffers even more in comparison to a movie like "Superbad," which is a truly whip-smart and astutely observant study of what it means to be a dork or a misfit in a society that values appearance and coolness above all else. Moreover, Jamie Kennedy is clearly no Jonah Hill or Michael Cera in the acting department. In fact, with his pratfalls, clowning and mugging, he often seems to be channeling a bad imitation of Jerry Lewis.

Even though David Hasselhoff and Emmanuel Lewis stop by for a couple of good-natured cameos, this is one fish-out-of-water tale that should probably be thrown back in the water.

At best, the movie makes one wonder how audiences twenty years from now will be looking back at the 00's. One shudders at the thought.


I generally like Jamie Kennedy and thought Malibu's Most Wanted was pretty funny. But holy crap, this movie was a pile of ****.

They had a great premise to build on and they blew it. Could have had cameos all over the place, Turbo and Ozone from Breakin', Kool Moe Dee, Grandmaster Flash, etc etc.

Instead, they put in a bunch of Busch league dancers who were flat out annoying, and jokes written with zero creativity. It reminds me of another turd that came out recently, Drillbit Taylor.. Annoying characters, a script that wouldn't pass a 5th grade Creative Writing paper, with a few people that *could* have been funny (and are in other movies).

At minimum it should have been funny and it should have had some ridiculously good breakers and it failed miserably on both counts.

I'm being kind by giving it 4/10.


When people make movies as bad as this, do they attend their premieres? I really wanna know. How do they show their faces? I guess "comedies" like KICKIN' IT OLD SCHOOL must appeal to some kind of illiterate unschooled trailer-trash drool-toothed dipsticks, otherwise somebody fellated some major pole to get this greenlighted.

Was it the minimal "draw" of comedians Jamie Kennedy and Bobby Lee (both naturally funny guys, but atrocious in this movie)? Was it the anachronistic break dancing craze, a proved cash cow in the distant past? Was it that comet that passed near Earth and birthed a two-headed calf?

The fish-out-of-water premise always has potential: Justin (Alexander Calvert), a hot young breakdancer in the 80s, lands on his head and goes into a coma. He wakes 20 years later (retaining his 14-year-old mentality, which explains why he is now Jamie Kennedy) and reunites his break dancing team from the old days - Miguel A. Núñez Jr., Bobby Lee and Aris Alvarado, losers all, who can't dance any more, let alone act.

They enter a dance comp for some inane reason, but Justin's agenda is to show his ex-girl (Maria Menounos) he can still kick it, so she will leave her asshole boyfriend (Michael Rosenbaum) for him. It could have worked, had this movie hired an actual director, actual writers and actual actors.

What irks about KICKIN' IT OLD SCHOOL is that, like many movies of its lowbrow ilk, stupidity and non-talent is lauded. It is not a bad thing that Our Heroes "win" the day, but that they win without any effort; they win when others are so clearly superior; they win by being the biggest retards on stage - and that is supposedly how you win. No, kids. It's not. Even this bad movie (and others like it) is not made by people who DON'T know what they're doing. Yet this movie tells us a competition can be won if you don't know what you're doing; it tells us that all those years of practice for the other competitors counts for nothing; it tells us you can be a virtuoso at a craft without going through the rigors of becoming a virtuoso. (Like those bogus exercise-machine ads that claim, "You don't even break a sweat!" Hey, great! No pain AND gain!) And that's entirely unacceptable.

The funny thing about this movie (--there's something funny about this movie?) is that Bobby Lee's "Domo Arigato Mr. Roboto" bit looks hilarious in the trailers, in the film, like a Chinese burn. So too with the down-wid-it tongue-in-cheek title, all the failed gags, embarrassing plot points and mistimed bits. Nothing works outside of the thirty-second trailer.

What almost became an Olympic sport in the 80s has been marginalized in the 2000s, but the people who still do it, do it extremely well. And that's the only redeeming factor in this movie - the dancing. Dated though it is stylistically, we appreciate the astounding expertise of the kids who can still jam, break, lock, snap, crackle and pop it.

Unfortunately, expertise is something Jamie Kennedy and his crew of jackasses lack, so we know how it's going to end - yes, he wins the dance comp, gets the girl, and somewhere, Gene Kelly, Fred Astaire and Gregory Hines are turning in their graves.

--Review by Poffy The Cucumber (for Poffy's Movie Mania).


I wasn't going to write a review but I had to do something when I discovered IMDb has nothing lower than 1 star.

I am absolutely floored by the fact that 455 people gave this movie 10 stars. I can only assume that they were investors who are trying to salvage whatever they can by tricking naive readers into going to see this total disaster. I caught this on cable (nothing else on) and my jaw dropped minutes after it started and I kept watching because I truly could not believe it could get worse. Man, was I wrong! I had seen the previews, thought it had potential and considered seeing in a theater. Pfffew.

The scenes with Maria Menounos are priceless. She absolutely deserves some kind of award for that performance. In the same way IMDb needs to add a zero rating for this specific movie, the Oscars need a brand new category for the role of Jennifer in Kicking It Old Skool. In fact, I've just decided to coin the acronym KIOS and use it whenever I see someone who is acting the way Maria acts in this movie.

I feel sorry for anyone who spent any money watching this movie. And to the 455 investors, your 10 star ratings were totally KIOS.


I just saw this movie, and I regret it badly. I hoped for a good nice comedy, that would make me laugh, and give me a nice feeling after watching it.

With this movie I didn't get that. MOST of the jokes was to lame for my taste, and not very fun. As the movie progressed my final grade became lower and lower, almost ended up at 1, which is the lowest grade. The only good thing about the movie was the Knight Rider scene, only because of that, and some SMALL laughs it get's 2 stars instead of 1. Also I wanna point out that the acting in this movie is not very good. Some scenes I find vulgar, and very disturbing. Not fun at all, you kinda wait now here comes the joke, and then there just comes nothing.

If you think about watching this movie, my advice to you is don't watch it.

2/10 stars


I rarely hate films; in fact the only other film I have been genuinely annoyed at having subjected myself to watching was date movie. Personally I find it hard to distinguish between the two as to which is worse. this is just so terrible. the acting is awful, the script is unfunny and, putting it bluntly, crap, the humour is that of a 9 year old, the plot line is rubbish and the whole movie is such an utterly pitiful attempt at a comedy. IT IS A WASTE OF TIME TO EVEN BOTHER WATCHING THIS. FOR YOUR OWN SAKE, DO NOT EVEN THINK ABOUT IT!!!!!

Here are the facts how I see them:

1. I watch a lot of films

2. I am very tolerant of films and rarely dislike them

3. I passionately, from the depths of my heart, hate this movie.

4. However pointless, I hate the producers and writers of this film for making such a Appalling movie, and even more for subjecting it to the public.

I will repeat again, DO NOT WATCH THIS MOVIE!!!!!!!!!!!


Throughout the movie, I found myself uncomfortably irking in my seat hoping to fast forward the scene because of too much stupidity in it. The plot was supposed to have made a good film but destroyed with all the bad scripts, acting , bad humors, and so many pathetic scenes. The only part that made appeal to me was the first part, the 80s setting. Those kids acted it well enough. Also, there's too much inconsistency -- the young justin has acted good as a cool kid in school but the old justin is such a gigantic loser.

Michael Rosenbaum is such a greatactor and he shouldn't have been casted in this movie, this destroys his reputation.

Please don't make stupid film like this again. It's such a waste of time.


In a moment of self-vindication, Jamie Kennedy's love interest tells him that the most beautiful part about him is that he doesn't try to act like an adult. Therein lies the fault of Kickin' It Old School, its assumption that there is something virtuous in acting like a 13 year old, and an immature one at that, especially when it's writers are thirty something, and throwing their best material into the mix. To that end, Jamie Kennedy pulls out every trick in the book including fat jokes, gay jokes, racial slurs, bathroom humor, sex jokes, violence, Jewish jokes, retard jokes, a barrage of un-funny parodies of 80's wardrobe, dated colloquialisms, and over-played and un-original jokes resulting from a 20 year coma in a tragic attempt to mix back to the future, you got served, and some Adam Sandler movie. The abundant product placements and celebrity cameos makes it clear that Kennedy tried as hard to fund this film as he did to make it funny, calling in every favor and taking every opportunity to give a product unnecessary and often distracting camera time. For a film with so much corporate backing, one might expect camera and lighting work that was at least decent enough not to detract from an already lacking project. Luckily, the guest stars in the film didn't have much reputation to loose, since the product of their efforts is nothing short of a cataclysmic failure. Somewhere between a fat joke and a TiVo plug, there's an uninteresting and hackneyed plot about a desperate loser who has to do something big to win something back, imagine Happy Gilmore but with humor replaced with break dancing. This is what you'll get from Kennedy's Kickin' it Old School which features Kennedy as an adolescent boy in a 30-year-olds body who has just woken up from a 20 year coma to find out that the world has changed and has wholly passed him by. He must reunite his dance team and win a break dancing competition to pay off expensive medical bills and save his house, win the girl back from his evil nemesis, etc. etc. Perhaps Kennedy lost me when he started rubbing his fat best friends breasts, thankfully covered in a bra, but it seems that he often forgets which subplot he's working with, or rather what the main plot is altogether. If Kennedy seems convincing as a man with a 13-year-old mind, which he does not, it may be due to the fact that his humor never quite developed past a pubescent mentality. Maria Menunos seems oddly overwhelmed by a role that really should have been easy to pass off just on good looks. Kennedy himself is erratic, immature, and awkward with unkempt hair that parallels the movies and Kennedys lost sense of direction. Miguel Nunez Jr. revives the awkwardness that defeated Juana Man some years ago, a film with a plot and a performance about as disappointing as this one. Bobby Lee slips in and out of a stereotypical Asian parody that becomes MIT alum when he whips out his big vocabulary words, he is much more effective and funny in sketch comedy when he is no forced to extend his performance for more than five minutes. Michael Rosenbaum is refreshingly comedic in the light of his feeble co-stars. At one point in the film, Kennedy's character comments that his dancing crew is just a bunch of 30 year old guys acting like losers since they are stuck in a 13 year old mentality, This proves to be the most interesting moment in the film since the viewer is left to wonder whether the dialogue pertains to the plot only or is perhaps an introspective excursion for Kennedy himself. If it is, the 30 year old loser wins in the end, so Kenned can be seen as optimistic at best. If there seem to be too many suicide or death jokes in the movie, perhaps Kennedy is recognizing his failure and subtly suggesting something to the audience, were all ears. Ultimately, the audience is left wishing that Kennedy's character had not come out of a coma, or at least that they could be put into one for the remainder of the film.


Yep! "Stuuuuupid", thats what you got to be to go see this piece of junk.

Acting -> Stinks Direction -> Stinks Jokes -> so badly setup you see them coming a mile away, some oldies might smile a couple of times thinking back... but thats it, nothing really funny the whole damn movie.

Overall, made really cheap and it shows.

I am willing to bet my, and my future kids testicles in saying this is going to flop SO badly because you have to be an utter moron to like a movie like this, even taking into consideration that there are many morons out there... this would be too much for a large majority of them too.


I'd heard Jamie Kennedy was funny. Whoever reported that was on crack. Kennedy makes Pauly Shore seem like Laurence Olivier.

I brought my 2 sons (11 and 13) to see this movie because one thought it looked funny. I'm a pushover for going to movies with them. I figure a movie with a PG-13 rating will not be crude or offensive, simply it will have a few curse words and possibly some implied sex.

I think I laughed once and thought my sons were laughing a little early on. When they got to the part about teaching the formerly comatose break dancer some moves for getting with his love interest (using a short fat Hispanic "actor" with a wig and bra as a sex doll -- he looked like Chewbacca with that wig. They showed him how to grope and squeeze his "boobs".), I was utterly offended because of what my children were seeing. I was about to tell my family we were leaving, when my 11 year old asked, "Can we GO, now?"

The rating was wrong. There should be a rating for offensive, insulting, pointless, no redeeming values. I only wish I had seen a manager on my way out so I could have gotten a refund. This is only the second movie I have ever walked out on in my life.

I agree with several of the other reviewers. I felt that my evening out was worse than ruined (we bought 4 tickets, 2 drinks and a tub of popcorn -- easily $40). Time was stolen from us. If I were a fighting man, I would already have beaten the crap out of the people who released this movie. I also agree that the positive comments could only be coming from people who made money on the movie, or who are friends. This ca-ca stinks. "Lex Luthor" Rosenbaum was fine in it. Christopher MacDonald must have been paid a lot to stoop this low. The love interest was good looking.

GARBAGE GARBAGE GARBAGE. I'm getting mad just thinking about how awful it was and how much it cost for that lesson. I will never watch a Jamie Kennedy movie again, unless he's uncredited and I didn't know he was in it. If this movie comes on TV and you have a chance to run away, do so. I'd rather watch a political debate with toothpicks under my fingernails.


I saw it tonight, and do yourself a favor and read what I say here. This movie goes way beyond simply being a waste of time and money - I feel that almost two hours of my life have been MURDERED. I try to have a policy of not walking out of movies because I can usually find something good about them. I am as forgiving as an audience can be, but once I had finally had enough of this one, I had a headache from the anger it caused me. Without going into specifics about the multitude of things that were bad, I will tell you that the hack writers and producers should be arrested and sued for trying to make money from something that puts the world in reverse and robs us of our time on earth ...they even had the gall to make it more than 90 minutes. I could have put up with the poor story and the awful characters if the jokes or the actors were funny, but they weren't. I'm a peace and love kind of guy, but right now, four hours after seeing this, I find myself still wanting to fly to LA to find Jamie Kennedy and kick his ass. Anyone who gave this a good review has got to be on the payroll of the production company. I have to stop writing because I'm finding that words can't describe what an awful experience it truly is.


this movie has no redeeming qualities at all...none...it is insulting and worst of all it isn't funny. For example, it makes fun of an elderly homeless man, then offers up as comedy a picture of that man peeing on himself. It has a horrible stereotype of Black women bullying and beating up on their men and the men being afraid of their women. When I saw the film it didn't draw one laugh from the audience that was watching it...not one. It was a pathetic, humorless, offensive and stupid endeavor. The only partially redeeming characteristic of this film is that if you get up to go to the snack bar in the middle of the film you won't miss anything funny or important. Do NOT see this film!


This movie was utterly obnoxious. All the jokes were trite, slapstick humor and could be seen a mile away. The acting was stilted at best and downright awful at worst. It was overdone both acting wise and in the direction. Not that one would expect greatness from a Jaime Kennedy movie but I thought it would at least be entertaining. Unfortunately, this was not the case. It was the worst movie I have ever sat through at the theater. Had I paid money instead of seeing a special screening I would have demanded a refund after ten minutes. Don't bother spending your money on this film, wait three months, it will be out on cable its that bad.


Just when you thought the nail couldn't be pushed any deeper into his coffin, Kennedy is back, and this time in a movie like Malibu's Most Wanted, or rather a movie where he is acting like a stupid white guy: Kickin It Old Skool! Right now I'm telling you just to rent Malibu's Most Wanted to get a clear picture of how this movie is: humorless with a stupid white protagonist. You don't even have to go out and spend a few bucks on a rental, just turn on your TV at this moment, and you will find a movie with the same formula.

The only handful of at least entertaining films Kennedy have been in is "Dead Poets Society", for which he was uncredited, "Boogie Nights" which wasn't in the original film but deleted scenes, and Scream where his character was well balanced among the other high school kids in the film. His track record of Son of the Mask and Max Keeble's big movie, considered his biggest roles along with MMW weren't too great.

The best part of the film was the secondary characters, who dished out some occasional amusing humor from time to time. But the humor didn't last long when it cut right back to a joke about stupid white Jaimie Kennedy, just to ruin the good mood!

The story is oh-so familiar, with a rival young hip group of kids just waiting to duke it out with Kennedy and his band of misfits, except duke it with fists they shall not, but rather their old skool moves. (Notice how the title of the film is spelled adequately for our youth of today, missing all sorts of hard consonants that we shouldn't bother with putting in proper linguistics).

Alas, there could have been hope. But don't waste your money on yet another film attempting to exploit the goofy white people, which has been done for years on end.

Kennedy needs to stay in his coma, for the better.

3


This was terrible.

With the amount of talent and experience the team has, I am amazed that they produced such a poor example of "Science Fiction". Besides lacking any true originality or mystery, the characters and events utterly failed to be believable. The plot is furthered by leaps and bounds of crooked logic and the musical score tries too hard to compensate for it. I felt that I was watching a cheap ripoff of an episode of Outer Limits (which itself is not a fantastic example of the genre). When I started watching, I hoped to be intrigued and forced to think. Unfortunately, the message was insultingly obvious.


The first episode of this series was a ham-fisted political statement with little merit. Viewing of the second episode ultimately left the same impression as the first. While initially promising, and a much better use of actors and a wider, more involving setting, this episode succumbed to the same preachy, heavy-handed political dogma that marred the first one. In fact, this episode was less subtle, more absurd and more strident in it's denouncement of US policy, as well as naive and unrealistic about other nations' motives.

The setup is that an all-powerful force comes to Earth to stop warfare, promote understanding (via language translation), and ultimately create a peaceful world. Of course we are privy to this intent because we are told so by the plot, while characters in the story are given bits and pieces. This force eventually leads the world to the brink of destruction as it shuts down Earth's nuclear weapons in a sequential manner. The world's leaders must decide whether to attack the extraterrestrial forces or submit to being disarmed. A discussion about the motives of the ETs follows, are they benevolent or hiding ulterior motives? Who knows?

Unfortunately, the denouement of this intriguing setup involves the use of a heavy hammer to pound the tired message that US imperialism ruined the world while Soviet and Chinese socialistic benevolence could save it. This is being stated by those who hate the US political administration and policy, and have a unrealistically rosy view of other big nations. These are the same individuals who would NOT get to make such a statement about their government but would be imprisoned if they were living in these other nations, or would be slaughtered for such statements if living under an extremist Islamic government.

Are we to believe that both China and Russia would so graciously accept disarmament by a force seen as "God", an entity that both governments have denied for years? Is it realistic that a US President and his military staff would actually announce to these same nations what their plans of defense would be? Is it also realistic that an all-powerful extraterrestrial force would only be able to shut down nuclear arms in sequence rather than all at once? Isn't it sensible that the military staff would warn the President that the ET forces may have unkind motives? Did nobody here see the Twilight Zone episode, To Serve Man?

The scene of the US President, of course played by the Smoking Man from X-files, being lectured by the Chinese "President" (who in reality is actually NOT a president) about humanity was laughable. Yes, we all know that China is a staunch defender of human rights. The Chinese have so much more freedom from tyranny than we, especially their protesting students. The only realistic moment in this whole scenario was when the French agree to capitulate to the ETs, and then that was made into a joke by having the US react to that with surprise. Forget this tripe and rent or buy a copy of The Day the Earth Stood Still, a better version of this idea.

Note to the writers and producers of this series: We already know what happens when an extraterrestrial force arrives looking like a "God" and appears to be benevolent, and are welcomed. If you are curious about this, just research these terms = MAYAN CIVILIZATION and CONQUISTADORS


Wow, that was awful! My fiancée(who has aided me in several other recent reviews of mine) and I watched this last night, and the quality was so low, we decided to write a review of it together... to warn off anyone lucky enough to not have watched it yet. No, the "documentary"-maker may not have had a direct hand in creating(nay, *spawning*) this episode, but it sure reeks of him. The story was preachy and condescending, not to mention poorly structured(essentially entirely built up around the political agenda that it forces upon us for a good deal of it). Another trait that fits with him having made it is the blatant anti-Americanism. No matter your stance in politics, no matter how you feel about the agenda pushed here, the presentation is undeniably extremely poor... which is really the very core of the problem with this. The message was heavy-handed, preachy(*at* you, not even to you) and insulting. This made After School Specials look subtle and Jerry Springers' Final Thought look intelligent. It's not so much Masters of Science Fiction as Masters, if even that, of Left Wing Propaganda. The acting was unimpressive, save for perhaps O'Quinn(whose presence in the episode, coupled with our attraction to the genre of science fiction were largely the reasons we watched the episode), but Rohm, for example, is just... bad. Why she keeps being cast is a mystery. Editing was OK, cinematography had moments that made me wish the director would pursue music videos, instead. The special effects seemed as if they wanted to save any money they could... save for one effect, which was good, and another, which seemed to have no purpose at all. The writing is quite lousy... clichés are plentiful, it was drenched in naivety, predictability abounds, the story never really captivates(in spite of its title, I could easily see people falling asleep during it), even though it manages to rip off far more established sci-fi titles(including Independence Day and The Day The Earth Stood Still... the latter being from when obvious messages in this genre were at least more accepted and usual, and actually a well-produced piece of celluloid; this was simplistic, offensive... modern propaganda). The writer/director seems to have also taken a note from X-Files(in addition to promoting The Cigarette Smoking Man to President), in leaving the ending open(to appease and appeal to both religious people and UFO enthusiasts... and here's hoping they'll all see right through it). The score was... strange. I'm not sure who thought those drums were a good idea. The production values aren't dreadful. The President and Americans, particularly military officials, all come off as war-mongers(the throwaway line about the fallout, oh *please*). The good guys are all the other countries, in this piece of pap. How was this even sci-fi? Heck, it could easily be argued that there is nothing that would bring about that classification to be found at all. Ignore the promos. Please. For your own good. And these are the "masters"? These episodes, the cream of the crop(since they were the ones ABC *chose* to air, there were two they didn'twhat must they have been like)? Somehow, early parts aren't devoid of promise... the first scene with O'Quinn actually has some dialog and points that were interesting, and the first episode, "A Clean Escape," did at least show some quality to it. The only value this has is to be laughed at. We want our hour back. It should be noted that we only got to see these first two episodes, as our local ABC affiliate chose to air pre-season football instead of the two episodes following it... and ABC buried it in a spot in the summer, when they would be watched by hardly anyone. I recommend this only to those who agree with the message being shoved down the throats of viewers... so the preaching can go no further than the ears of the choir... and those who are fans of science fiction and/or Terry O'Quinn should especially stay away. Far, far away. And to the people behind this sorry excuse for entertainment and/or commentary: Guys... get on a soap-box and stay away from this fine medium(or, as my fiancée suggested, stick to message boards, so you can be put on Ignore). We don't need more sci-fi *this* badly. In case you were wondering if my fiancée and I hated this... yes. Yes, we did. We wish we could give this a zero, but... 1/10


I'm a huge Zappa fan, but this is easily one of the worst movies I've ever seen, right next to Star Wars The Phantom Menace. Frank and company should have taken a cue from the Beatles' Magical Mystery Tour and realized that you just can't shoot random weirdness and expect to have a watchable movie.

The music's just ok, too. This version of the Mothers with Flo and Eddie was never one of my favorites. Still, the film does kind of suck you in and dares you to watch it. Some of the really old and cheeseball special effects, reverse film tricks, etc. come off as disturbing, but all in all, this is quite a snooze.


To many people, musician Frank Zappa's counterculture rants were dangerous, to some sexually charged and stimulating, and still to others tired and boring. Somehow, he managed to cut a deal with United Artists and filmed what emerged as a free-form musical diatribe on drugs, sex, the gap between generations (musicians vs. the common businessman) and post-psychedelic expression. With MTV some 10 years off, this was the only way Zappa and his Mothers (of Invention) could bring their ideas together, but unfortunately it's too messy to involve anyone beyond Zappa's core audience. Ringo Starr, in Frank Zappa garb, has some curious speeches that attempt to clarify Zappa's concepts of society, and some of the rock music is indeed exciting, but Frank Z. is far too defensive to be much fun. Surely some of these directionless scenes are meant to be satiric, but his sense of humor is always undermined by a draggy, self-serious need to "teach us something". It's a post-"Laugh In" series of sketches which might've been personally felt out, but they fail to grab hold because, technically, they look terrible. Grungy, and undermined by druggy influences, the movie doesn't take shape. Besides, Bob Rafelson and the Monkees did this kind of thing first (and more slickly, to involve a wider audience) with "Head" in 1968.


After over 30 years of waiting, I finally caught this movie on late-night cable. It was definitely not worth the wait. As expected, FZ fanatics will dub virtually anything he did as a "work of genius," but this nasty piece of work is nothing more than a display of self-indulgence. FZ himself stays out of the limelight, using Ringo as his stand-in, but he hovers in the background as a God- or conductor-figure, the mastermind behind the mess. The film is choppy, vulgar, and so dead-weighted by 70s film techniques that it's a laughable look back at how awful entertainment could be in those days. And the band...aargh! Would anyone like to argue that the Turtles could never have made it in show biz after the advent of video? And why does the amazing George Duke waste all his time with a trombone? Zappa was no doubt a musician of talent and insight. For instance, I remember reading an article he wrote in STEREO REVIEW (around this same time) about the music of French avant-garde composer Edgard Varese. And he obviously was acquainted with current orchestral writing techniques (the segments in the film of purely orchestral music are the most durable). But what separates him from true genius is how he wasted his career trying to shock the cultural and religious establishment by being as crude and vulgar as possible. Many "geniuses" have shocked the world, but few if any of them spent their careers reveling in the muck as did Zappa. Genius requires something a bit more exalted than 200 MOTELS.


I've been reading about it for years. I got to finally watch it. It's absolute rubbish.

I'm not to happy with what I said because criticizing something doesn't mean attacking it or cursing it. And I'm a big Zappa fan. I listened to most of his music, read about him, read his book, watched almost all of his videos. I'm not fond of his dark egotistical sexually-obsessed cynical obnoxious side. I'm more for his unique, innovative, independent, genius, creative, pleasant musical side.

He was intelligent. He was an articulate speaker. A funny man.

He's not a god. And he's definitely not a filmmaker.

The film is just boring. I lost interest after struggling with it for 1 hour. And it's not like I'm not open-minded or I don't understand. I like surrealism, absurdity, and the avant-garde. But the film was just tasteless.


While not truly horrible, this movie is still a nearly unwatchable mess which is only barely saved by Zappa's music.

This movie could only have been made in the post-psychedelic, highly experimental climate of the early 70s. It feels like a first year film school project gone horribly wrong. Every "trippy" video and editing trick is employed. It's truly an "everything but the kitchen sink" approach to film making, however, it only serves to compound the fact that there's no substance to this mess. There's no plot to speak of, rather it's more of a series of skits. The trouble is, for the most part they're unfunny and only barely entertaining. Even cameos by such luminaries as Ringo Starr and Keith Moon fail to deliver much beyond the cheap thrill of recognition.

As I mentioned, this movie is only barely saved by the musical performances. That's because some of them are horrible, some are just OK, and only a select few are actually really good. This is the kind of movie you need to see on DVD so you can skip straight to the performances, because there's really no other reason to watch this movie.

I guarantee you won't be able to get through this movie in one sitting. It's basically garbage, and is interesting mainly as a historical curiosity.


There probably aren't a lot of people out in imbd land that are bigger Zappa fans than I am (I have ALL of his records for starters), but even so this film just doesn't do it for me. Others who are big fans of this late genius may want to give this one a look for curiosity or nostalgic purposes, but as a cohesive films it leaves a lot to be desired. It'd probably be great to have on if one were to be, say, experimenting with hallucinogenic mind altering substances, but other than that it leaves a lot to be desired. I recall about 10 minutes of entertaining segments in this long production and again, I'm a HUGE Frank Zappa fan. Thankfully there's more suitable footage available for those who want to see what this often underrated musician was really like. Then again, I've always thought Zappa was ahead of his time musically and philosophically, so perhaps this somewhat dated production will be more appreciated in years to come. Like his music, though, there's certainly not many other things out there like this. Sorry, Frank, but I still have to give this one a 2 out of 10. Long live Zappa!


I saw this film for the first time in the 70's in a funky little theater in Manhattan on a double bill with Joe Cocker/Leon Russell's "Mad Dogs And Englishman". I was stone cold sober. Now, TCM just broad casted it and I watched it again. This film is full of little vignettes about life on the road, but the images are deliberately blurred, the camera goes here and there, and everyone seems to be partaking in something that they bought from a dealer. This, of course, is ironic, since Frank Zappa did not do drugs. Some of the music is, of course, wonderful, and its great to see people like Flo and Eddie, Ian Underwood and Jimmy Carl Black on screen, but the film is solely for Zappa fans. I don't think you need to get stoned to watch it, but for some of this, if you are sober you feel like you were invited to a party only to be the resident wallflower. If you like Zappa, who of course left us too soon, you owe it to yourself to watch it, but if you do not care for his music, its not your film. The rating is based on the cohesiveness of the film, which is barely there. I was stone cold sober when I watched it on television this time also. I'll never learn.


This bizarre, trippy experience has a few good songs and a couple of laughs. It is also incomprehensible, boring, and silly. The band proves they should stay on the infamous road, and away from the camera, and this is nothing more than a Frank Zappa ego trip. "200 Motels" gets an appropriate 2.


This was always going to be a hard novel to adapt - the very qualities that make it a great read make a confusing film. The book has a mysterious, dream-like, languid quality - Woolf can slip over hundreds of years in a sentence and the reader admires her prose skill and absolute razor conciseness.

On the screen though a jump of that kind, with no explanation, is just confusing. We detect from early on in the book that it's more of a psychological fable set against a literary / historical background than a naturalistic, historical story with a real plot. But on film all the realistic period detail etc taken in by your eye makes you instinctively expect realistic events. Might have been a better film if done like a Greenaway, so clear to the viewer it's not a 'realistic' story etc. Or if completely re-interpreted, or turned into a feminist polemic - by just translating as closely as possible events from the book to screen it's just thin and pointless. Plus many long, silent, madness-inducing pauses in the film, which obviously you don't get in a book.

There's simply no 'story' in the film, no reason to care, and the only character seen long enough to register is Tilda Swinton's Orlando, who as a distant, expressionless, apparent immortal you just can't care about. We don't even get to know 'what it's like' to be Orlando, and there's no interest in the whys and wherefores of his/her immortality - so no 'threat', no 'learning', no story arc of any kind. All in all I can't recommend the book highly enough (plus it's really thin!) but don't bother with the film.


I watched this because my wife wanted to see it and the synopsis on the back of the DVD case made it sound interesting. To be honest, if I hadn't read that synopsis I wouldn't have had a clue what the story was supposed to be about - even then I didn't think it was about self discovery as the synopsis claimed.

I didn't find Tilda Swinton at all convincing as a man. Yes she looks vaguely androgynous but her voice gives her away as obviously female. There's also the small matter of her being almost the only male character in the Elizabethan scenes who isn't sporting a beard...

I found the pace of the film to be dreadfully slow. There seemed to be endless long shots of people walking towards or away from the camera. I eventually reached the conclusion that these were to show off the wonderful cinematography (and some excellent Foley artist work) rather than to advance what there is in the way of plot. The first half of the film probably devotes more time to nothing much happening than it does to dialogue.

Not a film that I'll be watching again.


What would happen if we could live a series of past lives, strung together like pearls, with full cognition of them all? Orlando, written and directed by Sally Potter, explores this theme, but then also weaves another few strands along the way. The title character, played by Tilda Swinton, plays Orlando like a skittish school girl, who remains confused and emotionally isolated from herself, those dearest to her, and the world at large.

While visually fascinating, Orlando bounds helter-skelter through 400 years of history and politics to make some fuzzy social commentary on gender, sexism, and love. The score is perhaps the most interesting element in a film that fails to connect with this viewer. It travels well through Orlando's four centuries, complimenting Swinton's movements with vibrations that haunt our senses. Like most art house period pieces, the sets are sumptuous creations, if a bit overblown with fabric and muted color.

I kept asking myself was Swinton's restrained performance purposely done---or just purposeless? Well, with art house cinema, we'll be debating that for many centuries ourselves!


Woolf's novel, Orlando is witty, clever, funny and has a remarkable evenness of tone and writing skill - certainly for her. It is a work of an artist in possession of their craft.

This film version of that book has none of those qualities and while it is excellently designed and shot on a modest budget it lacks intelligence, wit and purpose: it is a pop music video. It is all surface and eye candy an Winton's performance incarnates that gloss. While she has a fine face, she is overtly wooden.

But worse than that it has a smug and ever so cool media studies artiness as it breaks the frame to address the viewer. The film version is like a tier 3 university course called Feminist Poetics and Male Narratives...the mediocrity of its cinema realization is much to clear.


Adapted from a novel by Virginia Woolf, this is a classic example of the triumph of style over substance. The plot concerning a young English aristocrat initially set in Elizabethan times charts how the character longs for love and companionship falls for a Russian girl who toys with his feelings and ultimately breaks his heart. Queen Elizabeth offers him a house and land if he can remain young and not wither away. Miraculously Orlando does not age at all and remains young (However the reason for this is not explained). He is given an then ambassador post in the East, forms a friendship with the ruler and gives them weapons to fight of a mutual enemy. He returns to England and falls into a long sleep and awakes as a female (yes really)and whilst out horse riding falls off her horse and amazingly along comes Billy Zane and the same thing happens to him they immediately feel something towards each other and return to Orlando's house and make love. He is a free spirit and ultimately returns to America. Then we quickly are rushed through the World Wars to the present day London where she has passed her writings to a publisher in the Docklands and we see her and her child riding off back to the House she owned for centuries.

I have probably left a few things out. But then I felt there was a lot of emotional depth missing from this film. I did not for once find Tilda Swinton believable as a man in the beginning of the film. Even when Orlando changes sex I did not find her acting to be of the required emotional depth, although the script was probably partly to blame for this. I found some of the dialogue to be quite trite in places. And even though the story of Orlando could have been interesting this 90 minute film seemed like it was well over 2hrs. As another reviewer has stated, the character passes through these times but there is no real connection, you do not find out a great deal about the periods and what life was like as the film concentrates more on Orlando's emotional quest. Also I am not really a fan of movies where the protagonist often makes asides to the camera, in most cases it is not essential to the plot and adds nothing to the film.

I would give this film 3.5 out of 10. It is not worth the time, unless you are a fan of Virginia Woolf's writing or interested in feminist movies, but even then there has been better.

If you want to see a much better Tilda Swinton film I highly recommend you check out a 2001 movie called "The Deep End" she co-stars with Goran Visnjic.


I am really at a loss in trying to review this movie... What is there to say about this film? Unfortunately, not much. Yes, Swinton gives a good performance, and yes the costumes are good, but that is just about all there is to this motion picture.

Everything else is a mass of senseless mumbo-jumbo. This film has no story, no meaning, says nothing and is going nowhere. A complete waste of time and money, I really don't know what else to say about this film.

But then again, it's probably one of those 'intellectual masterpieces' I am just too ignorant to understand. Silly me...


This film deserves recognition by virtue of its cinematography and for the first class (almost brilliant) job done by the leading actress. The story was over worked and under researched. The suspension of disbelief must be supported in drama, not undermined as it was here. For a man to change sex, face a mirror for the benefit of the audience (look, breasts and no penis) and then declare that she felt no different but only looked different, is the biggest insult ever leveled at women in the history of storytelling. The differences between men and women (even the obvious ones) go far and above breasts and a penis. For many reasons, the story was too simplistic too obviously a slap in the face for pater and a nudge in the ribs for anyone who would giggle and snort or nod knowingly. What could have been a meaningful story about the dreadful abuse of women and the crazy notions forged by generation after generation of self interested, jealous and frightened men of power, turned out to be a soulless and simple romp, highlighted here and there with the help of "painting by numbers."


This film is a classic example of an arty film on a hallowed novel which gets brilliant reviews but is unapproachable and dull to the majority of the movie going public. Unless you have read the novel and are au fait with the subject matter, even the intelligent viewer will be left bemused and quite frankly bored to tears. Only for the die-hard Virginia Wolfe fans.


Interesting film. Weird story, indeed, that makes you think a bit. But I found it quite unforgivable that you simply can't believe in the first part of the movie the main character is a man. Filmed already in these times of CGI and make up professionals, I can't understand why the filmmakers didn't make the actress look more like a man. Or, if this was too much a hard thing to do, why they didn't choose a real man to act in the first minutes. This is too obvious and too much disturbing not to rate the movie as high as it could have been. It leaves you with the feeling that the people who made this really didn't care enough about their work, or didn't think we deserved a clean job.


Someone wrote in response to another confused, disappointed viewer: "I'm hoping you are a brand new film student...if you cannot analyze this easily interpreted film, you are going to go crazy with Fellini, Truffant, and most other works of greatness. Wait till you see The Battleship Potemkin!! Don't give up though...art is an incindiary form of annoyance for many...open discussions are the secon best part of art."

The writer was correct in stating that open discussions are the second best part of art. Great art arouses the soul and covers the spectrum of feelings, emotions, and the mind. However, for me, comparing this film with the great works of Fellini, Truffaut, and Eisenstein is annoying in itself.

I saw this as a double-bill with "Le Plaisir" by Max Ophuls. For me, the distinction between art and an incendiary form of annoyance is clear - "Le Plaisir" is a realized masterpiece with brilliant source material. And then there is this, the annoyance!

This film is not dreadful, but it is mediocrity teetering on the edge of the cliff. A very interesting proposition by Virgnia Woolf is just completely reduced to shallow banality. With so much worthy plumbing available with the source material's take on immortality, relationships, and androgyny, this (literally) skates on ice. This effort reminds me of Rand's "The Fountainhead" with Gary Cooper and Patricia Neal - full of shimmering possibilities and strikingly photographed, but poorly realized and interpreted.

Tilda Swinton has the metamorphic wherewithal of Meryl Streep and Toni Collette required to pull off this role, but she doesn't ring true at all - there is none of the world-weary angst that this character, burdened by his/her past and fearful of the future, should embody. This character should oscillate between manhood and womanhood from a deep central core of wisdom, but I don't see this at all in Swinton's performance.

Billy Zane's striking good looks don't translate well to the intriguing dovetail of Shelmerdine - his performance is weak, he photographs poorly, and there is no chemistry between the two characters. Quentin Crisp's take on Queen Elizabeth is the interesting moment in the film, but it is at best a campy one.

This rates about a 3 for me. As such, I would love to see a remake of this up for the taking.


Ever since I have seen Infernal Affairs (IA), I said to myself that Hollywood would not pass up on a story like this. And true enough, I heard Brad Pitt bought the rights to the show and that he and Tom Cruise are slated to act in it. When I heard that the whole ensemble changed, I still was looking forward to the film. IA, with a much smaller budget, looks more expensive than The Departed (TD).

Character development -IA, is all about heart. It is about how the mole in the police, Ming, is torn between his identity as a mole, and his conscience, and the mole in the mafia/gangland, Yan, is torn between doing right for the police and his own dilemma about his identity. Ming is not bad, nor is Yan good. TD, like all other Hollywood cop movies, is about black and white. Costigan is wholesomely good, and Sullivan is utterly bad. Their characters are so one-dimensional, it's almost like the screenwriter doesn't trust his audience to be intelligent enough to know that good and evil are degrees of grey.

Timeframe - The time frame is just ridiculous in TD. Are we expected to believe that in the short span of 4 months, Costigan is able to infiltrate the mafia and become Costello's left hand man, given that everyone (so 'cleverly' explained by Queenan) knows that he was a cop and that Costello doesn't trust people easily? Are we also to believe that Sullivan can rise through the ranks of the police force so fast, considering that (also 'cleverly' explained by Ellerby) they don't trust people with perfect records? In IA, it is a convincing many years. Both characters are allowed to grow into their environment enough to be torn. TD just throws it in our face.

Acting - How can people say that the acting is superb? Matt Damon doesn't emote at all. Leo Dicarprio is so whiny, if he isn't whining to Queenan, he is whining to the shrink, or Costello and Mr. French. Martin Sheen is like a vase, so weak and wimpy, he doesn't have the air befitting of a Captain. Mark Wahlberg's character, sarcastic as hell, for what? It's a wonder that he is even there, he has no role to play at all. An omission of his character wouldn't have made the movie any less. The shrink sleeps with both Costigan and Sullivan, and we are expected to feel sorry for her? And Jack Nicholson, so painful to watch. Even the extras are so miscast-ed. The Mainland Chinese characters are so obviously 3rd generation Cantonese speakers, with the American accents, I am not a native Cantonese speaker and even I know it's all wrong.

Screenplay - This has to be one of the worst screenplays ever.

a. Costello, if he is a big time gangland boss, and that he is dealing with international crime lords, why is he and his right hand man still going round the hood to collect protection money? The writers cannot decide if he is a big-time crime lord or a smalltime mafia boss.

b. the time-line.

c. Costigan sends the tape to Madolyn, gets Sullivan to meet him at the building Queenan died, and expects to do what? It is just a cheap shot at trying to mirror IA's intelligent rooftop scene.

d. The fact that the cast says F*** every other second makes the movie cheap and crude instead of realistic.

e. the subplots are so unnecessary and so poorly intertwined. The double crossing of the mainland Chinese, the FBI informer subplot, the letter that was never heard of again, the love triangle between moles & shrink, the time in cadet school. All these subplots should be omitted, then maybe the director can concentrate on the real story.

f. What's up with the ending? First Costigan is shot (Which is a ripped off from the original), and then everyone else gets shot in the head except Sullivan. Is there a need for all that gore? Or is it just cheap thrill? And then Dignam kills Sullivan. Does Dignam have a great enough agenda to do what he did?

g. Did I mention that a lot of scenes of the movie are ripped off from the original? Even the dialog of some of the scenes is directly translated from the original. I read that the writer claims that he didn't see the original. Is he trying to claim the great parts of the movies as his own? Isn't that plagiarism? Which brings me to

Production value - Scorsese bombed, big time. He has ran out of tricks, the movie started out good, but the ending seemed so rushed, like he has ran out of time, or interest. I love GoodFellas, and his style and techniques at that time seem fresh and ingenious. But the second time he used the pinhole effect in TD, I realize that Scorsese has ran out of ideas. There are even scenes that he took from the original shot by shot, making it seem like he cannot make his own out of the material.

Over all I am very MAD. MAD at the people who say this movie is brilliant. It is brilliant only because the original is brilliant and they had taken almost every element of it. I am MAD because of the disregard of respect on the part of Scorsese's team, not giving the credits when credits are due. Is he going to get an academy award for something that is not his? Something that he so blatantly took from someone else and did not even bother to credit? That would say a lot about Hollywood and their disregard for anyone else. I am MAD at the way the movie ended and I am just disappointed that the audiences are treated like idiots and they don't know it.


Well, due to all the hype I went to see this one with great expectations, although I must admit without having seen the parent film Infernal Affairs. What a let down ! Setting the scene is great, and time taken to achieve this is well spent, but for me the film started to drag, with expectation and patience well run out by the time the plot strands began coming together. Yes, Jack Nicholson is a great actor, but no he didn't convince me in the role, even though most of the good lines and deliveries were his. But Boston Irish ? Everyone, including the deliverer of the line "I'm Irish & can live with something wrong the rest of my life...." failed to convince me of Irish lineage. The accents, the faces, the attitudes were all wrong for souls in torment over doing what they believe they have to do, a basic for Irish/Catholic guilt and angst.

The film would have been much stronger with unknowns in several key positions, and for me once the disparate strands were established the rest of the film was very predictable and I wasn't kept guessing - crucial if we are to suspend disbelief and have pressure and tension build in the viewer.

DeCaprio fails to convince as a tough guy, despite the convincing scars. He stills comes across as an adolescent fuming after his pocket money's been withheld. Matt Damon looks like an awkward schoolboy, and was even less convincing than DeCaprio about being a cop. Mark Wahlberg sounded like he'd been taught to swear the week before, Martin Sheen was as hard bitten as a kitten and there were so many operational goofs the film became a comedy. A Federal agent running a State operation against his own informer? What a waste of time and budget monies. Only two people knowing about an undercover operation? BULL! Keep sending an undercover back after his nerve's gone ? Garbage ! Permanently deleting a full record (on a State Police computer no less!) without possibility of recovery ? Unbelievable - even children know data can be restored, and the system will keep a record of who deleted the information. For me, the film became a joke and I couldn't wait for the end to arrive so I could leave. By the time the end plays arrived and new players were falling like flies, the audience was laughing out loud at the inanity. Once again, Hollywood takes a good story and ruins it with poor crafting, no matter how well filmed. Very bad casting, a rushed and unfulfilling ending, far too much gore, not enough character substance, one dimensional players and an insult to the viewers intelligence.


Caught The Departed last night and I have to say, its one abject failure of a remake. I was expecting it to be good, and truth be told, I wanted it to be good because it is based on Hongkong's Infernal Affairs, quite possibly one of the best gang flicks of all time. It is one of my personal favorites due to its brilliantly conceived plot of gang versus police, replete with paranoia and deceit. It is also quite possibly, one of the most intelligent films I have ever seen (second to Memento).

Where do I even begin? There are just so many things to criticize about. Firstly, the utterly realistic characters in Infernal Affairs have been reduced to one dimensional vectors that merely carry the plot forward. Matt Damon's character was reduced to a bad ass villain and was almost gleefully ridding anyone who knew of his identity, with no hint of remorse even till the very end. In Infernal Affairs however, at the end of the film, Andy Lau truly wanted to be a good guy but obviously, circumstances did not allow him to, and therefore he was forced to kill the gang boss to protect his identity. He subsequently went crazy over the guilt of killing the police informant (Tony Leung, or Leornado in Departed). Infernal Affairs ended brilliantly because Andy Lau's character survived it all with no one knowing his true identity. He could therefore assume his role of a high-ranking police officer, but was ridden with guilt and constantly reminded of the people who died because of him. It was really tragic and you could almost sympathize with his character. And what's with the ending of The Departed?!! Do all Hollywood films have to have perfect fairy tale endings where the bad guy has to die? And even if he has to die, does it have to conclude with an abrupt scene that lasts 30secs, and not to mention, totally cheesy and lame. It seems like a quick way out to conclude the story. The climax at the lift in the abandoned building was also unintentionally funny as body counts skyrocketed as people just started dying ridiculously. The reaction that people had in that scene in Infernal Affairs was true shock'Oh my god!'. The reaction in Departed was quite the opposite  people started laughing.

Also, the strange and awkward friendship between the police informant's boss and the gang boss was completely removed in the Departed. It was so enjoyable watching how the 2 former friends who are currently on opposite ends of the law, try to outplay each other in a full-fledged war of wits and power, but with grace as a result of their friendship in the past. This was COMPLETELY omitted in the Hollywood version. And also, there was a lack of tension between the police force and the gangs. Martin Sheen seems almost weak and hapless against Jack Nicholson and Nicholson himself appears barely sinister and intelligent. Another stupid omission was the friendship between the police informant and his boss, which was meticulously staged in Infernal Affairs, and culminated in a tragic climax when the boss fell off the building and landed right in front of the informant. This scene was attempted in Departed but failed miserably when Leornado tried to look sad when his boss died. There was no friendship to speak of between these 2 characters in Departed!!!

The movie also tries way too hard to entertain. The crazy antics of Jack Nicholson is reminiscent of his character in Anger Management. Yes, Anger management, that rubbish of a comedy. And I do not understand why there are so much sexual references in the movie. There is sex, women and porno everywhere in the movie and is completely unnecessary and downright insulting. Gritty realism is not achieved by dumping sex scenes in the movie.

I can go on and on and criticizing about almost every single aspect in the movie (like how unnecessary the role of the psychiatrist in the Departed was, but completely pivotal in Infernal Affairs etc.), and might as well write a thesis on this movie. To conclude, there was not a single scene of tension nor was it ever moving or exciting. In fact, i found it more funny than anything else. The acting was not particularly great as well despite a rather stellar cast.

Infernal Affairs was an intricate and convoluted plot of deceit, lies, friendship, paranoia and love, at the hands of skillful directors who carefully stage memorable scenes and powerful climaxes  almost everything that Departed was not, despite an almost identical script. The critics are REALLY WRONG on this one. It is a complete failure of a remake, and even without comparison to the original Hongkong version, it is still a ridicule of an otherwise excellent plot. The editing was also fragmented and confusing, and coupled with horrendous pacing, the film gets progressively frustrating. Martin Scorsese has effectively removed everything that was so good about the original. Trust me, save your money and time, and watch Infernal Affairs, even if you have watched it already.


Although I loathe a lot of what Hollywood does in films these days, I am willing to put up with much of it as long as the film pays off in the end. While there is much to admire in The Departed, the ending is one of the worst I have ever seen, below the standards even of Training Day and John Q. I was quite mesmerized up to the point where Costigan discovers the truth about Sullivan. In spite of Scorsese's compulsion/obsession with every filthy aspect of human nature, I was very much enjoying the performances and the story. Then, it seems he or the screenwriter had a brainfart. In light of that fact, all of the excess of the film caused it to implode. In the ensuing vacuum, I could find no redeeming quality of the film at all. What does the story tell us? It wasn't true to itself at all. No one gained a thing. No redemption. No resolution.

I am not an expert on films in any way. But it seems to me that when a story is developed on the strength of a collection of main characters, the story had better wind up focusing on the relationship between them. One by one, the supporting cast is eliminated. Then one of the three main characters is killed off. That leaves the two lead roles, and as far as I'm concerned, at this point it has to come down to the two of them. Whether it's a showdown or a meltdown, this film had to close with Costigan and Sullivan forcing the outcome. Instead, they are both eliminated with as little drama as if they were innocent bystanders. The fact that these events left as many questions as answers tells me that the director really didn't know what he wanted the story to say.

The acting was superb, the story captivating, the suspense almost unbearable - what more could you want from a good movie? Well, as far as I'm concerned, without a good ending, all of the above amounts to little more than the hype that usually precedes a film, but in this case makes up the bulk of the film. Enough with the blood and guts, Mr. Scorsese, enough with the profanity and vulgarity - lets see if you can make a film that succeeds on its own merits.

And in the meanwhile, I would appreciate it if you could convince the studio to refund my money.


When I heard Scorsese made this movie, i was very excited. Because one thing that i know, Departed will be an adaptation of my favorite Hongkong movie "Infernal Affairs" or "Wu Jian Dao". And when I read a magazine, the director denied and said it's only inspired by. So my expectation flew away. But all my dream has gone when I saw "Departed". It's all the same. Sorry, spoiler, how the boss gang died, how the captain died, how the undercover died, all the same. In short, all the important scene, are all the same. Maybe, they have different ending but if you have seen "Wu Jian Dao", "The Departed" just only follower. No need a big name like Scorsese just to remake an Asian movie. One thing, "The Departed" has lost the thrill that "Wu Jian Dao" have.