This is one of the most inept films in terms of craft I've ever seen. It is so poorly filmed that it makes an Ed Wood, Jr. movie or one of Oscar Micheaux's later films that are plagued by continuity problems seem masterpieces of craft in comparison. "They Call Me Bruce?" makes Wood's GLEN OR GLENDA? seem like Eisenstein's POTEMKIN.

The acting was atrocious, yet the film was strangely compelling -- as compelling as watching a car crash. I'm not joking. It takes some kind of negative panache to pull off a film that is so GODAWFUL. I just kept watching and watching, appalled yet fascinated. The scene in the Hair Styling salon, where Johnny Yune is wearing a blonde wig and a mumu and is posing as a mannikin (a mafia torpedo, looking for Yune's character in the shop, keeps stabbing the mannikin next to which Yune stands, never once noticing that Yune keeps moving to reposition himself down the line of mannikins to avoid getting stabbed himself; the torpedo's partner, holding a pistol to the shopkeeper's head, never notices the moving "mannikin" either, distracted as they are by the shouting of the clever shopkeeper) is just unbelievable. Talk about suspension of disbelief!

The scene that preceded this one, where a group of African Americans hold Yune and his partner at knife point and Yune speaks to them by using a HOW TO TALK JIVE dictionary, is also simply unbelievable. Yune's wooing of the African American "gang-members" with jive, who comport themselves with much eye-rolling, "jive-talking" and "soulful" body movements (imitated by Yune's character) that make the late Stepin Fetchit's shtick seem to ne as dignified as Paul Robeson in comparison, is one of the landmark moments of the cinema in the sense that it likely would wind up in some TV documentary about racism if this movie wasn't so damn obscure! If there ever is a TV doc about Asian-African American racism, this could be exhibit #1!


This is one of the worst comedies I have ever seen. The plot is ridiculously dumb and the jokes are really bad. I wouldn't even recommend this for kids, even really stupid kids. I saw it recently amongst friends (we were having a contest as to who could rent the worst movie) and it felt really dated, even though it wasn't made THAT long ago. This movie is much worse then it's rating and should be avoided at all costs. The good thing about this movie is that it isn't carried at most video stores! But if yours has it do me a favor rent it and throw it in the trash then pay the fee to buy it (shouldn't be that much). This is a great way to help the public and it doesn't take up as many hours as community service. Be a leader in your community and help destroy all copies of this movie!

Zoopansick


I saw this film 17 years ago, and I must say that I found Johnny Yune's performance funny when I first viewed it...

However, in retrospect, I consider this film to be an insult to the great Asian American community. There are so many Asian-ethnic stereotypes in this film that I am not too fond of the way Asians are being portrayed in western productions, such as this "B-grade" film. I have to admit that Johnny Yune is a talented comedian, who once had a thriving career in South Korea, but he comes-off almost as bad as Garrett Wang (the dysmal, one-dimensional Asian ensign on "Voyager"), because he is shown less as a human being, and more as a degenerate foreigner struggling in a thriving western world!

If Johnny Yune's character is based on Bruce Lee, then shouldn't he at least have some of his confidence, machismo, and charisma? But no, this film, and its sequel fails to deliver in that department! Also, Johnny's character of Bruce has lived in the United States since childhood, having immersed himself in American culture for many years, yet he comes-off as a confused tourist who is in the states for the first time? Man, that is about as UNBELIEVABLE as Mr. Miyagi (Pat Morita) speaking in broken-English, after having lived in the United States (since his teens) for over 50-years!

It's interesting that this film still has a following in Australia. I wonder what they think of all the contrived Asian stereotypes in this film? Even Jackie Chan films show Asians as 3-dimensional characters. With so much bologna here, you can open up your own deli.


I'm not sure if Beauties and the Beast is a movie or just a compilation of someone's home movies. The plot, if you can call it that, involves a Bigfoot type creature terrorizing a bunch of hippies and nudists in the woods. The creature looks more like a guy wearing a black bathroom rug and false teeth than an actual Bigfoot. He kidnaps girl after girl taking them to his blanket furnished cave. He gropes them a couple of times and that's about it. I have no idea what happened to this girls or if they ever escaped. This film doesn't bother with things like that. In reality, Beauties and the Beast is a cheap, poorly made, and horribly acted excuse of a softcore porn film. Everything is simply awful. I can't think of any reason, and that includes the generous supply of nudity, to recommend this one to anyone. It's just so gawd awful! And if you must watch this thing, beware of the soundtrack. It's a two pronged assault against the senses. First, there's the generic, overly-sappy elevator music. It almost put me to sleep on a couple of occasions (that, and the dull movie). Second, one of the hippies insists on singing a folk song. I think my ears may still be bleeding.


This spectacularly silly'n'slapdash soft-core Sasquatch smut really needs to be seen in order to be believed. Gaynor MacLaren's patchy script offers more of a snazzy idea than an actual story: A lonely peeping tom Bigfoot abducts sexy'n'shapely sensuous young hippie honeys from a nearby commune and takes them back to his cave to keep him company. Fortunately, director Roy Naneau inexhaustibly milks the skimpy premise for every last sensationally shameless, leering, voyeuristic girl-watching cheap sleazy thrill he can derive from the laughably ludicrous story, with the picture hitting its jaw-dropping surreal apex during a wacky nightmare sequence showing two luscious stark naked gals having an Old West-style gunslinger showdown! And frankly who needs an it-would-only-get-in-the-way hokey plot when you got busty'n'lusty Irish redhead hottie supreme Sharon Kelly, the impossibly voluptuous Uschi Digard and the deliciously lissome Sandra Carey peeling off their cloths and happily displaying their delectable unclad bodies with pleasing regularity? I sure don't. The uproariously inappropriate hip, mellow, finger-snapping cocktail lounge score takes the viewer straight to aural groovesville while the ratty, scratchy photography further spices up the film's fantastically lurid'n'loopy sense of blithely unapologetic degeneracy and the maladroitly jumping back and forth fragmented narrative eschews continuity in favor of a peculiarly becoming "what the hell's going on here?"-type disjointedness. And the Bigfoot itself is a splendidly sickly, shabby, shambling gasser to behold: With its fat, putty-nosed face, mangy black coat, large white teeth, and gigantic, muscular behemoth build, the hirsute Polish Mongoloid lecher resembles a last place loser participant from a tenth-rate kindergarten Halloween costume party contest. A so-terrible-it's-quite-tasty cinecheese hoot.


After a two minute introduction to the Bigfoot mythos that seems like it could have been plucked out of "Legend of Boggy Creek", we first meet the shag carpeted, snaggle-toothed creature himself. Seems that this particular Bigfoot is quite the peeping tom. Spying on them until they get into various stages of undress then whisking them away to his secret cave for later use. In between the cheaply made creature roaming around doing his thing, we're 'treated' to such mindless padding as a woman waking up & showering with a sad lack of nudity, a mindless sub-plot ( or what passes for a semblance of a plot in all honesty) about ex-cons that goes nowhere fast, hippies being hippies (complete with an absolutely horrid song), and a rather strange nightmare that has jack all to do with anything. Strictly for fans/ completinists of the works of Uschi Digard and/or Sharon Kelley. Because even ample nudity can't save this turd.

My Grade: D-


A very ragged-looking voyeuristic Bigfoot kidnaps girls to keep in his cave for no apparent reason whatsoever. Enter two girls vacationing at a cabin (one of whom is Ushi Digard who can barely speak English) who meet up with a small group of hippies. Soon they're all attacked by some bad guys looking for their stash until Bigfoot shows up. This is a shoddy production all around with sex scenes that go on WAAAY too long. There is one bizarre dream sequence of a showdown between two girls wearing only gun belts and boots. Recommended only to liberal-minded Bigfoot completists only.


A surprisingly satisfying film. This film takes the subject matter far more seriously than the original film, with the end result bringing me more into the story then the previous film. While on it's own it's really only passing fair amongst other films of the genre, it's connections to the original film, and it's remaining true to the spirit of the material from which it was drawn made this movie an enjoyable watch for me. Without giving any spoilers, I would have to say as a D&D'er, this film is much truer to the game then the original movie in every possible way. The character's are more interesting, the perils they face are more dire, the antagonists are clever and deceitful (which is rare in any genre), and their is definitely some decent, though not great, acting. I would definitely recommend this movie.


The first D&D movie was largely hated by D&D players, partly because it wasn't a good movie, but also because it was not very much like D&D the game.

Perhaps because of the cool reception of the first, this was changed dramatically in the sequel. It now really is like the game, sure to provide lots of geek moments where viewers try to guess which spell is being cast or what magic item is being used. The characters also tend to act like D&D characters, and they actually explore a dungeon.

Unfortunately, as a movie, it has some shortcomings. For one, much of the acting is uninspired. Not bad, but about a wooden as a dummy of Keanu Reeves. The first movie also suffered from this problem, but in this movie, it's probably because most of the actors are new, this generally being their first film. Exception being Tim Stern, the guy playing the Rogue, who brought some life to his character.

The characterization and dialog isn't great, either. Less character development than in some commercials, even though this is a fairly long movie. But I chalk that up also to the inexperience of the screen writers (though also is relatively common in D&D games, so perhaps is a feature, not a bug).

When it comes to special effects, they are about on par with Sci-Fi channel offerings. Slightly better. Lord of the Rings it ain't. But not terrible, either.

Still, just judging it as a fantasy movie, it's much better than most other low budget ones. Worth watching. And for D&D players, it's a lot of fun.


I was someone that had mixed feelings on the original D&D movie. I thought the script was clunky, the acting was awful as far as good guys were concerned, it contained wildly inappropriate dialog for the setting, and the tone made light of what could have been dramatic events. On the other hand, the movie looked good, had a couple decent fight scenes and the huge Dragon war at the climax was dynamic and exciting. Still, with it's less than impressive reception, I figured this would be a series of one.

Imagine my surprise when a sequel was announced, and even greater shock when I watched the films premier and found it to be everything I felt it's predecessor lacked. The acting, while not Oscar worthy, was perfectly reasonable work from a handful of unknowns. The plot is treated seriously this time around, with a minimum of cliché and jest (Although there are two laugh out loud moments) and actually features an intelligent foe with a genuinely epic plan for the forces of justice to combat. Speaking of which, the heroes are a nice diverse bunch, and the film manages to showcase each one's unique talents well.

As for the action and eye candy, there's plenty. The fights are staged better than 90% of the action flicks on the shelves, with realistic flow and quick pace. The special effects are among the best I've ever seen in a non-theatrical film and are leaps and bounds above any other Sci-Fi premier yet broadcast (Though not quite as good as a theatrical release). The final battle is not as kinetic as the first films finale, but manages to be a fitting climax to the quest.

If this is what this crew can produce with a terribly low budget, I say give them 70 million bucks and get Dungeons & Dragons III in theaters ASAP!


I was amazed when I found out that they were making a sequel to the horror that was the first Dungeons & Dragons movie. Despite the poor quality all around of the first one some people gave the source the benefit of the doubt and were willing to try it again. Thankfully this time the source material was taken more seriously and the project was put into better hands.

The result is a decent film with a comprehensible story, and decent production quality. The cast is by no means A-list, or even B-list; though they do well in their respective roles. The effects are alright, but if the movie had a better budget it would have been even better.

All things being equal this movie is superior to the first. DnD folks out there should like it and appreciate the detail taken to make sure the source material comes through correctly. It's a mixed bag on how much other people will like it. If you are willing to look past the lower grade special effects, and the cast of unknowns then you might enjoy it.


This, my friend, is Dungeons & Dragons. This is not a cinematic masterpiece. This is not Shakespeare. The storyline wont change your future. But it's 1:45h of real entertainment for any Dungeons & Dragons fan.

Unlike the first movie, D&D:Elemental Might go back to the book. Many fantasy movies have wizards and fighters, but I believe the creators actually focused on really bringing the things we recognize from the D&D world into this one. There's a real "party" with classic Dungeons & Dragons professions represented and they really do what is to be expected by their roles. There's real dungeons... There's dragons... and there's even a few unique D&D monsters that is recognized from the books. The villain is more evil. The good is more good. There's heaps and heaps of magic, and even divine magic (which is unique to D&D) plays a great role this time around.

If you ever played D&D and you can accept some budgetcuts on bringing your fantasy to life, get ahold of this movie. If you never played D&D but you are a general fantasy fan, get this movie because it's the most fantasymovie you have seen since Lord of the Rings. If you are neither a fan of fantasy or an oldtime fan of Dungeons & Dragons, you can probably forget about this one and watch something else.

I will buy it and I want to see more D&D movies in the future!


The first few minutes were the visual equivalent of a bad novel's prologue. Rathern than introducing the problem through the story, the bad guy tells you about himself and his plans, although not in enough specifics for it to make sense. Fortunately, the heroes don't watch the prologue, and they're reasonably good at explaining the plot to the viewers as the movie goes on.

The movie did a good job of using D&D terminology (arcane vs. divine magic, etc.) and had the feel of a typical D&D adventure. It was paced fairly well, and the acting was appropriate for an original Sci-Fi channel movie. The special effects were very well done, but some of them weren't too understandable unless you were a D&D player.

If you aren't a D&D fan, there's probably not much here for you. If you are, then it's worth watching, as long as you can avoid speculating on what color certain beasts are or complaining that certain things aren't the way they are in the manuals. Just assume their DM has house rules, OK?


I enjoyed this more then the first. There was no slapstick comedy which really teed me off in the first film. Although there was a clear leader, it was more balanced on a party of characters. It was more of what I would expect from a D&D movie. The action was well paced, and the plot progressed well. The SFX were decent. A few times the CG wasn't that good but it didn't really detract that much. Ellie Chidzley as Lux was very easy on the eyes. Hope to see more of her in the future.

In overall context of movies maybe 6.5/10. In the context of a D&D movie and to those looking for one I give it 8/10.

Worth a view.


For all of those who play DND and have played DND throughout the years... you may have seen a movie that came out in 2000 that you may have hated or maybe even liked what was called Dungeons and Dragons The Movie. Well in my opinion it was a flop... Well recently they actually made a Dungeons and Dragons 2. I watched it last night even though it has not been released yet (it plays on the Sci Fi channel on Oct 8th) and well... it was great! I was totally surprised with the production. It wasn't cheesy (except a few of the special effects) acting wise or production wise. The movie played out like it was a regular adventure that a DM would make up, the spells were cast properly, the "core" rules were not broken, and most importantly the characters were interesting and were not INVINCIBLE... they are just like us PC's (getting arms eaten or chopped off or getting eaten whole by a purple worm!). So trust me... it was great. Even though it was obviously lower budget than say... Battlestar Galactica. But what DND game isn't low budget.


I am grading on a curve, but this movie was surprisingly good and faithful to the D&D theme. The actors are all unknowns and acquit themselves well, especially Clemency Burton-Hill.

This movie is superior in almost every way to the original--the acting is better (none of the overacting of Malcolm McDowell) and the dialogue is decent (cheesy, but not to a ridiculous degree like the original).

The best part is how faithful the movie is to D&D concepts like limited spell casting and a Lich controlling Wraiths. And for a $15 million dollar movie (according to IMDb), the producers did a great job of building lavish sets and costumes which give the appropriate mood and texture to the movie (again, in contrast to the fake and cheap sets of the original).

The weakest part of the movie were some of the computer effects. Understandable given the budget, but a bit of a distraction, especially since the climax uses a lot of it.

Giving this an 8 out of 10 since I'm grading on a scale (this movie was much superior to most direct-to-video or SciFi "original" movies).


This movie is everything that the first movie should have been.

I still would have preferred to not have Damodar back, but at least he didn't have blue lipstick this time. Overall, I like the intensity that Bruce Payne brings to his performances, but I still haven't seen a role where he balances that intensity with believability.

If you play D&D, you will find moments of every game you've ever played in this movie.

I really liked our hero, Sir Baric, and I liked the Barbarian, Lux, and the Rogue. I thought the wizardess was a little weak, as was the cleric.

My favorite scene though is one of the closing scenes, where you see the wizardess and the rogue cleaning up the temple of Obad-Hai after receiving major healing there - a really nice gamers' touch I thought.

My 6-year old's mouth was hanging open for pretty much the first 10 minutes of the movie, he lost interest once there was a lot of talking, or course, but he really liked the scene where they traverse the tiled floor backwards (a classic D&D staple).

I thought that the black dragon-lich looked wonderful, but I would have liked to have seen more about the human lich, and his motivations.

An extended DVD version is definitely in order, there were at least 40 minutes of commercials in a 150 minute segment, I would really love to see more of the interactions between the PCs, and more backstory on the Lich, and the council of mages.

Overall, one of the best D&D movies yet, although Serenity is pretty close (and it's sci-fi!)


I liked the fact Damodar, the only good thing from the first abysmal movie, was the main villain in this one. Someone mentioned that he seemed to be a spellcaster now, but I disagree. I think he was still a Fighter, but he had an artifact that did all sorts of things for him. Also, why did Damodar run from Berek (the Fighter) at the end? My guess is that Berek is a higher level fighter than Damodar (who was put at 7th level in the first movie in Jeff Grubb's adventure adaptation of the movie), and he knew it. I'd run from a higher level fighter too.

Things I liked from the movie in no particular oder: we were told about arcane and divine magic, a passing reference to the Barrier Peaks, the god invoked to save the day was Obad-Hai, the Rogue checked for and disarmed traps and picked a lock or two (and used and ancient secret of the Rogues guild at one point...watch carefully for it!), the Rogue palmed a Gem of True Seeing (which saw some good use), LOTS of lightning bolts, a white dragon with the proper breath weapon, the great wyrm black dracolich (The dragon god, but just woke up so he wasn't up to full god power. Shame he breathed fireballs instead of acid streams, but chalk that up to SFX difficulties.), the Rogue burned through a lock with purple worm stomach acid, we had a lich (who was great near the end), wraiths, cloakers, cool traps, a cameo by a pair of dead drow, and Damodar's half-orc toadie.

Someone said the cleric pulled a novice move by jumping out and trying to take down the white dragon, but if he hadn't done so, the rest of the party would have been wyrm food too.

All in all, it was an entertaining movie and easily the best movie Sci-Fi Productions has ever done.


I must admit, I was impressed on several levels with this sequel. As far as the flaws, I can see some of the bad cgi, some cheesy acting, low budget effect, etc.

BUT This movie was more sincere in its efforts than the first. As a former player of the game, I saw that it held true to many of the game values, and I could relate to the characters and story.

The cast did a good job, and it was more of an ensemble performance. Like the first film, I was impressed with their exotic use of Lithuanian film locales.

If you've never played the game, you probably won't see it as more than "typical cheesy fantasy". For players, it will be a pretty cool experience, and not just a bit o fluff (One character gets killed by a Frost Dragon, another gets her arm teleported into a wall) I have a mixed feeling about the end, since the Hero doesn't "Get midievel" on Damodar, but I like that refreshing break from the clichéd final face offs that Hollywood demands to insert into every movie. Our hero is not a wisecracking killing machine. He's strong but just as vulnerable and not just out for revenge.

Bruce Payne is an interesting choice to bring in from the first movie, and he handles the role of evil Damodar well, despite having no real motivation outside pure revenge.

The chemistry between party members is above average, and they're smart characters, not the typical dumb pretty people. A decent film overall


Very good sequel to the original flop from 2000. For what seemed to be a lower budget movie being made for TV. Way better acting and cgi. I was a bit dismayed when I found that it was a sequel to that one due to its cheese factor.

The only flub I noted was when the half elf wizardess teleported them into damadar's lair. She cast it with one hand and the other came out stuck in the wall upon landing and I assumed she was holding her staff in it so why was it not stuck in the wall too? When they ported back out she appeared holding the staff while the fighter/lord guy was carrying her. And truly they should have been physically touching for them to go along.

Other then those small oversights the movie was a very well done. It made me glad to see that a Dungeons and Dragons movie could be made with a good story and not as cheesy as the movie that it was descended from.

The cleric being wrongfully portrayed as wise and battle worn would not have been dumb enough to try to face down a white dragon like that alone. That was a novice move.


It was a fairly decent movie. They had a few of the more obscure monsters, but at least it was more than just a beholder like its predecessor. At least it was better than that sewer slop that was the first movie. The cast was better and they seemed to focus more on the quest than just idiot humor. I had hoped it would help the genre, but I think it fell short of that. I say get rid of Damodar and the city and start over again. Doing that could only help any more D&D movies they may make. If you're a D&D fan, it's worth taking the time to watch it, but I wouldn't buy it on DVD or anything, unless you bought the first one and just want to have the set. It's not worth the money.


OK, firstly if your not a fan of RPG's or Dungeons & Dragons the Game, you probably should stay away from this film. As a film its fairly average , with undistinguished, but not awful acting, low budget effects, and basic plot outline. That all said as a fantasy film its got all the requirements you want, villains, monsters, a party of heroes, Inter-party conflict, and high magic. I really enjoyed this film, it contained many classic elements from the D&D game: From a Vorpal sword, walls of fire, fiendish traps, strange monsters, and classic character classes.

It was far more the film that the first outing should have been, which was truly awful. it is a shame it didn't have a larger budget. That said it sits high up in the ranks of Fantasy Movies.


The first D&D movie was one of the worse I'd ever seen; even more so as I'm a fan of D&D. The monsters didn't act like monsters out of D&D, the villains and heroes were all morons, the spell effects whilst OK in places were a bit over the top elsewhere, the magic was either all very weak or of artifact level, there were *way* too many dragons acting very non-dragon like, the plot was full of holes, etc. etc.

In this movie at least the monsters, although there aren't too many of them, act like they are meant to. There's much more of a variety of magic and the effects are good. There's a few puzzles, and outdoor, indoor & dungeon adventures - a good mix. The good guys as well as the bad guys get wounded - and not just lightly. The heroes are also a lot more natural and likable, although still a bit two-dimensional, and the plot is still a bit weak compared to a decently written adventure for D&D, but in comparison with the first film this one is an Oscar nominee. So, overall a decent B-grade Fantasy. If you swore you'd never watch another D&D movie after the first one, it might be worthwhile reconsidering. If only we could get Drizzt onto the big screen...


If the first D&D movie had been half as good as this one, well, I might actually watch it again.

A little about me - I'm married to a long time gamer - he's got the white box set for D&D and has been playing for as long as he can remember. I know a bit about D&D just from being married to him, but I'm not a player.

The first movie was horrible. It was poorly paced, it was not well written, Irons was just awful and Birch was so amazingly whiny that I was rooting for her death. That's just as a movie goer. My husband was just speechless - for about 5 minutes. After that I got the whole rant, but the thing I remember most was how incredibly annoyed he was that throwing a rock would fool a Beholder. Heh.

This movie was great. It was fun, there was adventure, there were traps, there were dragons, there was a lich (even I know what a lich is). The characters were engaging and the actors were good enough that I believed them in their roles (something else the first movie was lacking). I liked the older cast, too. That was a nice change. I just couldn't have believed that untried adventurers would be sent on such an important mission. So as a non D&D fanatic, I enjoyed this movie.

My husband was thrilled enough that he did not nit pick it to death, a bad habit he has during most movies. He was very happy to have D&D well represented in the movie, was pleased with the over all effects and the fact that the cleric didn't use edged weapons, that the elven wizard couldn't cast everything just because she was a wizard...and more things that I can't remember off hand.

This movie was good fun and kept my attention - something that is quite difficult sometimes. The pacing was great, which helped a lot. The characters were likable and believable and the story was good. I'd recommend this one without reservation, where as I'd never EVER recommend the first movie.


This was on the whole, an enjoyable fantasy movie. Players of the Dungeons & Dragons game will be pleased to find references to material from the game. Those unfamiliar with the game will still enjoy it as an action-oriented fantasy movie.

The drawbacks of this movie include a script that sometimes gets bogged down in melodrama, especially with the main villain's long-winded monologues about his evil plans (particularly at the beginning of the film). Other elements are campy, but done with enough tongue-in-cheek attitude to give me a chuckle or two. The movie also suffers from some minor sub-par theatrical production values. Since it was a direct-to-video/TV movie, these faults are largely forgivable. The most glaring examples are that some make-up work looks drawn in with marking pen and some monsters clearly look CGI. Special effects are about the same quality as the Hercules and Xena TV series, so I was still able to enjoy the movie despite these flaws.

Even with all of the above against it, the movie is still several times better from the theatrical Dungeons & Dragons movie that came before it. The producers wisely dumped all of the characters and plot except the bad guy's assistant, Profion, from the first movie; changed the setting; and conformed the fantasy world to be more in line with the latest version of the Dungeon & Dragons game. Those changes make for a movie that is light years ahead of the predecessor and much more enjoyable to watch.

The magic and monsters (especially the dragons) are fun to watch. The "rogue" of the party (an expert in disarming traps, picking locks, and other sneaky stuff) is the most interesting of the bunch. On the whole, I highly recommend Wrath of the Dragon God for anybody looking for a fun and enjoyable "B" fantasy movie.


Now this is more like it, a D&D movie that people who have played will enjoy and people who have not can understand. The special effects were not top notch but it was to be expected with it being a "B" movie. The acting was actually decent. More character classes than the first,more monsters,more races, just more everything.I do agree with the poster who said get rid of Damodar he's played out. Finally if you have played the game and are worried about watching another mockery of the game you love be assured this will not let you down, watch/listen for all the realistic game stuff. Oh and be sure to watch the special features,there's some good insight to the movie and characters. The movie would have received a 9-10 if the effects were better!


What can I say? I'm a movie-lover, game player and game designer, so of course I'm going to see flaws others will not. However, this movie doesn't really have anything outstandingly "bad". It does have some dumb spots, so I'll cover those quick and get them out of the way: 1) A Mage summoning a creature of fire in the library of priceless lore and nobody being concerned or telling her "do that outside", then they wonder when things catch fire. 2) A pit/floor trap with spikes that shoot up from below in an elevated hut where there is clearly nothing visible beneath the floor once they're outside again. 3) A lot of single lines that are too "B" in feel and distract from the atmosphere of the movie. Now, on to the good stuff. Like role-playing games themselves, this movie takes a little getting used to. It's easy to spot a single bad line or act of stupidity by a hero (and there are plenty of them), but I ask: If every movie hero never made any mistakes, would we really like them? Gamers make mistakes. It helps the "feel" of the film. The script is very well put together, balancing the two very different realms of a good "game adventure" and a plot that works within the style of a movie. The references to the D&D literature (both rules and classic AD&D modules) was very good, the plot made sense, it incorporated plenty of "D&D style", and it had a different feel to it. This does not feel like a TV movie, but it clearly isn't Lord of the Rings, either. But it's not trying to be. What is nice about this movie is that it is simply trying to be itself, and the "feel of D&D" comes through nicely because of that. I think they did well with what they had to work with (continuing a horrible initial film's story, low budget, and probably competitive producers as well). All I can say is that, both as a gamer and a fan of fantasy film, I was satisfied. If I want high drama and epic film-making, that's what LOTR is for. I'll put this D&D movie on the same shelf as Army of Darkness and The Mummy, as good adventure romps that I'll watch again and again.


Simply horrible. Very low-budget pseudo-sequel to the previous film with none of the same actors except one. It almost makes the first one look like a masterpiece. From the few extras, it seems that the creators actually wanted to do well and take this seriously but it certainly doesn't show in the final product except for a lack of b-movie fun that might have actually made this palatable. The fight choreography was lame, the dialogs were cliché, the special effects were pathetic (except perhaps for the first dragon but even there...), the actors were either mediocre or stunningly uncharismatic and the story... well I don't remember what the story was nor did I care much about what was happening. Actually, I saw this not so long ago and I remember very little of it. I'm giving an extra half star for the effort and genuinely noble intentions of the filmmakers who did try to make it closer to the rpg and because I've seen worse. Dungeons & Dragons deserves a much better movie. Why not one based on some of the Forgotten Realms or Dragonlance novels?

Rating: 3 out of 10


I had expected this sequel to be in line with the first D&D movie with regards to the general feel and content/quality, but was quite disappointed.

The visual effects were notably a lot worse, a lot of jerky, stuttered animation in the movements of the creatures, not at all the same kind of quite natural movement I expected to see after having seen the first movie. Lack of detail, cheesy transitions, poor interaction of rendered with real-world elements. There are more different creatures from the fantasy realm in this movie, but none of them are executed well, or even convincingly. Cutting corners with lots of gray and black.

Then, the acting: Sure, it's not been a strong point in the first movie either, but once again, a lot less convincing to put the characters down. No depth to them, feeling more like a high-school play at times which is also indicative of poor directing and a scripts with no real interest in telling a story, but rather to "produce".

I like the fantasy genre, I enjoy the setting this movie plays in. The medieval feel of all the extras was good, and some nice stunts there with the (many) explosions, but overall: a thin story, poor acting of the main characters, and horrendously B-movie special effects make this movie one that only barely scrapes a score of 3 out of me.

It's is OK to watch once. And only once... If you can sit through the 1-3/4 hours of it without getting fed up with it or tired of seeing the poor execution.


After watching the First D&D movie in 2000, I thought I might give this one a view, on DVD since it never hit the big screen down here.

Spoilers Start -

The Fantasy Dilemma: We have our damsel in distress, a sorceress in training who sucumbs to a decaying curse. We have our villain, Damodar AKA Mr Blue-Lip-Gloss (who was the evil side-kick from the first movie). And of course we have our bunch of heroes, a banded together D&D cliché group consisting of a thief, swordswoman, wizard-type, and other generic types. Unfortunately they each die before you can really associate with their characters (unlike the first movie). A few scenes hinted at some promise to the movie, such as the "blink and you'll miss it" battle against the Ice Dragon, but ultimately these random skirmishes, plus the anti-climactic climax do little to save this movie from the DVD bargain bin.

Spoilers End -

This movie also has a "made for TV" feel to it as well.

I wouldn't recommend this to general movie viewers, but if you enjoy D&D fantasy movies, this will be some entertainment, but it's far from a classic in the genre and pales in comparison to many big budget fantasy films.


OK just to get it out of the way I play D&D. Also I liked the First D&D movie (know well that it was going to be a bad "B" Movie)

That being said, THIS is what I was hoping for in the first one. This is a very good fantasy movie with good plot, acceptable acting and good FXs.

One thing that I really liked was that the writers actually looked into the game and took spells, gods and history right out of the books AND got it right.

There is cheese as there will be in any sword and spell movie but it was funny and fit the characters.

All in all I really enjoyed this file.

If your looking for a fantasy Sword and magic with Dragons movie this is for you.


While the original film had the action/Hollywood feel to it, it didn't seem much like D&D in the slightest. This one improves on that greatly. I was interested in the plot, even though it did tend to drag on at times, mostly the beginning. I liked how the characters actually matched D&D classes, and each one performed their duties as such. There was something missing, though I'm not quite sure what it was, and there were also some things that didn't quite mesh. Overall it matches D&D very well though, and a fan would have to be very picky for it to matter. I thought the cast acted well, as nobody was over the top or tried to call attention to themselves as super-hero extraordinaire (unlike the first movie). I was also disappointed to find out the lack of other work Chidzley has been involved in, but that's not movie related... oh well.


Gaining from five more years of CGI technology advancements, this movie is far superior than the original Dungeons & Dragons, even if still lacking the blockbuster status. The story is a good one, for D&D standards, and most of the peculiarities of the game are well inserted in the plot. From the choosing of the five heroes to return the orb, each with his/her skills put in evidence during the course of the story, to the villains - a lich, a necromancer, an undead skeletal dragon - to the use of D&D deities - Obadai. All the choices in the movies are well done, the casting is very good, with a good mix of races and male and female heroes, and the total effect is a good cinematic adventure, better than a more publicized effort like the infamous Earthsea.


Let me explain my view before some of you decide that I'm mad. Firstly most sane people agree the 1st film was absolute garbage. This film has many strengths. The plot, there is a reasonable plot with high level characters taking on an epic quest. The details, a great level of detail on the world actually having a history which gives the setting realism. The enemies, they were interesting having more than just one agenda. The good guys, although certain area's with the characters were a bit plastic, they did have character which was lacking in the first. The traps and puzzles, very impressed with the traps and puzzles which were overcome using methods that players could imagine. Clichés are limited which cannot be the same for many other films of this type( one being released recently and hyped to hell!!!) In conclusion this isn't the best film I have ever seen but it does have a lot of the elements that I wanted to see and I hope will spawn more films of this type but maybe a series starting the characters from their first adventure. It'd be good to see a fighter having a go at skeletons and zombies and being terrified and frustrated when bow fire has little or no effect.


I'm somewhat familiar with DND and RP'ing in general. I even LARP'd in high school. I really enjoyed this film. I actually felt like I was watching a DND campaign come to life! I wasn't expecting cinematic genius here, just a decent adventure, and this movie delivers. It's almost like reading a fantasy short story.

I also watched the special features beforehand. It really helped to see how passionate the people were and how much they respected DND. It seems like a good bunch of people that just wants the audience to have fun.

I honestly think that anyone who complains about CGI not being good enough or how "cheesy" it was, is too young to give intelligent critiques. This is a bunch of hard working, unfamous British actors in Lithuania trying to entertain you for 105 minutes. Honestly, I really appreciate the effort they put in.


From what I had heard about the first film, I was better off skipping it and watching the second. When the opportunity arose to do that, I decided to seize it since I had a couple of hours that I could waste. I can't compare it to the first in the series, but as a Dungeons and Dragons player since the 80s and a great fan of fantasy, I can analyse it on its own merits.

The first thing and the main thing that impressed me was the inclusion of several aspects from the actual game. I really liked the little touches of detail. Spells, items, monsters and more were all here. It was really wonderful to see all these brought to life.

The second was that it really did have a very distinctly Dungeons and Dragons feel to it, rather than just any fantasy film. There was an eye to things that fans and players would know, and that made it distinctly identifiable, which was nice; so often filmmakers, especially Hollywood, are notorious for tacking on an inapplicable brand name to a barely identifiable film tie-in.

Unfortunately, despite all these things, making it Dungeons and Dragons doesn't necessarily make it good Dungeons and Dragons. The film was a rather bitter and unhappy affair, and I found myself often really brought down by its miserable tone throughout. It is comparable to taking your character to a session run by a stranger, who has bought a module at a rummage sale somewhere and wants to inflict it upon you; he doesn't really know very well how to run the game and tries as hard as he can to destroy you all, to give himself some sort of sadistic pleasure. Afterwards, unhappy with the experience, you take your character and file him away, to be brought around for another campaign run, instead, by someone you know and trust. Which may not happen for years. And at that point you conveniently omit that one odd session out, because it was that unenjoyable.

And that's essentially what this film is: a bad module run by a nasty, childish sadist of a dungeonmaster. The story is relentlessly depressing and poorly-handled in every such aspect, and it additionally functions to make virtually all of the characters difficult to sympathise with or even care about. The leader is completely bland, although his love Melora was the high point of the film (and, predictably, the most tormented). The Elf mage was interesting but underused, the female barbarian was there solely for eye candy (though she did a pretty good job with her lacking part), and the cleric was there because someone apparently thought clerics were useless. All of us who know otherwise sent up a collective groan at the treatment of this one.

The rogue was a good actor, but his part was similarly inane and the character completely unlikable. He also ended up underused in the parts that could've shown his strengths, and overused in parts where he was completely superfluous. The villain was utterly forgettable unfortunately, although the monster effects were quite memorable indeed. I really did enjoy the dragons and so forth, especially the ultimate confrontation. Really exciting and really well done.

It's just a pity that the rest had to be endured to get there. This is the kind of story that you hear from people who decided to try the game once, got some garbage like this thrown at them, and ended up quitting and never again going near a tabletop game. It's sad, but it's amazing what an inept dungeonmaster can do for someone's enthusiasm. That's essentially what happened here.

And while the details were nice for a while, there were times when they were just useless and frustrating. We had a Drow throwaway joke, but where were any actual Drow? We had a 'necropolis' (cleverly masquerading as a sylvan glen) complete with a lich, but what real purpose did it serve? And so on.

If there had been more of a heroic, pleasant fantasy tone rather than a by-the-numbers destroy-em-all gauntlet tone, it would've been much more satisfying. As it was, it gave the impression of enduring the film, rather than enjoying it. There were some pleasant parts and some nice aspects, some talented people trying to do their best with lacking parts and ludicrous circumstances, but the tale itself was all too unpleasant. And as any player of Dungeons and Dragons knows, the story is everything.

It wasn't a complete loss. It's not totally a horror. But it is by no means a fantastic film, unfortunately for those who put so much energy into it. Hopefully if they do a third one, they will go for a better situation and different villain, as well as a less depressing, unhappy, and just plain unpleasant story.

And for pity's sake, somebody tell the DM that nobody likes to play games with someone trying hard to get them killed!


After being disgusted by the first D&D movie, I went into the Wrath of the Dragon God with trepidation. Even so, I tried to keep hope that the producers would make amends for their previous failure. Well, they honestly tried.... The action and CGI was much better, however there were many points where it was unbelievable. The ACTING was greatly improved. The story fit the D&D feel a little more. Being an AD&D player for many years now, I was still let down by the rudimentary knowledge the producers seem to have about D&D. I wish they would find some REAL actors, have a REAL adult story, and REALLY know their stuff when it comes to the D&D GAME ASPECTS. There are so many great things that D&D has as a game that could be put into a great movie... too bad no one can get their stuff together enough to do it.


My friend introduced me to a lot of anime series, but this one really stood out. It's about a young boy who moves a dorm but the administration places him with 3 other slightly strange roommates. They gradually get to know and trust one another, and you learn about each one's story. I think they were in the high school/college age range. Each character has their own "special" quirk and problems they're trying to fix. It's a great drama/comedy that is funny and serious in the right spots. It might be too slow moving for some people but you just have to give it a chance. At the time, I didn't think I would enjoy it but I really liked this series. I wish there were more episodes.


Fell in love with this show the first time I watched it. I watched the dub and I gotta say I loved it. Later I would watch the sub but didn't find it as appealing. The English version is best for people who don't know Japanese. The type of anime that it is just makes it more entertaining to hear in English. It's a great show and yes the dub may not be 100% accurate or great but you can relate to the characters emotions when in English. The new DVD dub is kinda dry. I prefer the VHS dub which are more laid back and well the voices bring out the characters a lot better. The DVD was re-dubbed because a few seconds of episode 2 where nagisa gropes shuns younger brother were cut out in the dub but left in the sub VHS. This isn't a dirty anime or something. It's a well funny light hearted type of anime that if you liked series like tenchi muyo etc would love.


I'm an American ex-pat living in Seoul.

I saw this movie without English subtitles and still managed to be affected by the story despite just having started to study Korean.

The excellent story, direction, acting, and cinematography carried this film over any linguistic obstacles I had for a great delivery. I can't wait to pick it up on DVD to finally know some of the dialog that had every Korean person in the theta sobbing by the end of the movie. Really, a great story. You Are My Sunshine (English title) covers the issue of AIDS as well as prostitution, two topics that are still a little taboo in Korea, as well as much of Asia.


Touted as the biggest love story in Korea in 2005, it is no surprise why the hype. Based/Inspired by a true story (there had been a handful of such movies in the recent weeks), You are My Sunshine is your typical melodramatic romance, with leads so cute and pretty, you can't help but be captivated as you embark on their journey of love.

It brings to mind a frequently asked question, whether it is better to love, or be loved. Seok-joong (Hwang Jeong-min) is a affable, simple minded hillbilly farmer, who dreams of getting married to the woman of his dreams, and settling down in a cattle ranch. Luckless in love, he contemplates going abroad to look for a Filipino wife, just as one of his buddies did. But anyhow soon after, he meets Eun-ha (Jeon Do-yeon), a "coffee" girl who also moonlights as a karaoke hostess, and falls head over heels with her.

Eun-ha is a complex woman with a shady past, but although we were not told exactly what, from Do-yeon's portrayal, it doesn't take a genius to warrant an accurate guess. She's extremely guarded and frosty, having lost hope in men, but eventually gets touched by Seok-joong's sincerity. Who says your average joe couldn't snag that hot babe, if he tries doggedly hard, and is thick skinned about it? And thick skinned he sure is, as he forges ahead in marriage despite objections from his aged mother. The movie then moves onto a different plane, looking at societal prejudices against people of certain trades, as well as misinformation about the disease AIDS. Eun-ha's past catches up with her (shades of Banderas-Jolie's Original Sin here), and Seok-joong learns of her being inflicted with the disease. Eun-ha disappears, and the village folk gets flustered in having to undergo HIV testing, putting the blame of the introduction of the disease on Seok-joong.

It's always difficult when you want to shake off the past, but yet get haunted by its ghost. You're seeking a new and ideal life, and it's always blissful to be with a loved one. You know the romance bit pauses and the melodrama sets in after the introduction of the ex-boyfriend, and the pacing of the movie suffered with the discovery of the illness thereafter.

I was waiting for scenes which will turn on the tear ducts. There were ample potential ones like the uneventful searches, the longing, the loss, but they were all building up the emotions to that one scene near the end, where you really feel the love lost, of being so close yet so far, the longing feeling to hold your loved one in your arms, to embrace them in warmth, to keep them safe from harm and to shower them with your love. Damn power, and really heart-wrenching, although it sort of looked comedic at the start.

As the alternative to another Korean romance Daisy, this one tended to be a little more intimate mature, and being less flashy. If you're up for some good old fashioned weepy, then You are My Sunshine is your choice between the two.


You Are My Sunshine is one of those films that's sneaky in a way you don't expect. The director, Park Jinpyo had previously directed a romantic drama about septuagenarians in love, wrapping a serious social issue (ageism) around an accessible drama. Like his previous film, Park now approaches another social topic (AIDS stigma/prostitution) obliquely, by bringing taking those issues and wrapping them in a well wrought melodrama.

The story follows a simple and idealistic country farmer who lives a lovelorn life, a common problem with a lot of rural Korea as many young men and women migrate to urban centers, leaving bachelors with few options. Well, he meets a coffeeshop girl (which, at some coffeeshops also suggest that they double as hostesses and prostitutes) and despite knowing her profession, is absolutely smitten. A sort of romantic comedy ensues, with conflict erupting from her own chilly disposition towards romance and the conflict arising from how this farmer's family reacts to the idea of a prostitute dating him. And then her past catches up to her, AIDS makes an appearance and things go straight into melodrama land.

However, the melodrama never really hits the clichés that had previously become all to overdone in Korean cinema. There are no deathbed scenes, although there are trips to the hospitals, and the film doesn't try to flood you with tearjerking scenes. In fact, because of the studied character development and believable reactions, the film actually earns every single melodramatic moment and so the one truly emotional moment has a lot of potency going for it, despite how simple it is. As such, this is an example of melodrama done right. And while it's doing it, it addresses the AIDS stigma, problems prevalent in the lives of sex workers and doesn't really pull punches while doing so.

Of course, when dealing with such clichés, acting really makes a difference and the two leads do an excellent job of convincing you of their characters and believably walking with the characters as they develop. The rest of the film is quite proficient too, with some beautifully shot scenes. The film only slows down a little after the midpoint as we deal with the characters on their own, but the ending really makes it all worthwhile.

So, what you have here with You Are My Sunshine is a really solid melodrama. It manages to avoid the worst of the clichés, stay in the genre and play it straight, make an impact and wrap in commentary on real social issues while making of solid dramatic entertainment. Good. 8/10.


I remember the actress Do-yeon Jeon who plays Eun-ha here from a subsequent film, the uncompromising, depressing "Secret Sunshine". She was amazing in that film and is just as good here, as a waitress/hostess. Jeong-min Hwang plays the fairly naive bumpkin like Suk-jung, who falls for her. It takes a long time for her to warm up to the idea of him as a boyfriend, but she does. Then, it is found out she has HIV. He vows to search for her, to always take care of her. This is the kind of film that only works as a film. I suppose the message is to follow your heart. Many people will be turned off by this film and not only for moral reasons. They may feel it is manipulative. However, the film is never boring and Do-yeon Jeon is a terrific actress. I'm going to see if she has done comedy because she was the lead in two very dramatic, soul searching but sad roles. If you can get past the storyline, the film is well made. Does love conquer all? Thats what this film tries to answer for you.


The story is based on a real gossip some years ago in Korea, and focusing on the eternal, condition-less love between a naive peasant and a bereft ex-prostitute whose past is somewhere under the body of many male CLIENTs. Every love has its own silver line and every lover has his/her own attitude; But, the love between this couple is too candid to be understood but to be appreciated. As no scientific paradigm cannot define THE LOVE, this movie just illustrates what love gotta be even under extreme background.

Nevertheless, the emotion of love affair and the instinct of affection should be separated. This movie, regrettably, fails in the depiction of love itself but concentrates on the struggle for keeping his/her aficionado toward each other against all social rules and interference. Love will shine when it's against all odds. However, these odds are too exaggerated in the movie to be overcome by love itself, otherwise making the love tattered with uncompromising and painful memories.

Director's endeavor to gather every piece of elegiac elements is too evident, and the performances of two actor/actress are very easy going, enough to make audiences lost in the clearly "schematized" sadness.


It wasn't awful, but this movie is pretty forgettable. With only a couple of exceptions, the characters came off as two dimensional, their actions made no sense and seemed totally unrealistic. The actors did a passable job with what they had. The dialogue had a few chuckles but largely felt short of witty, and it couldn't seem to commit to comedy and instead comes off as a not so compelling drama with a few comic moments. I will say the end was unexpected to me, but it didn't really make up for the flaws.

Of course, Hayden Panettierre is really hot, and if you enjoy looking at her this movie is probably worth seeing just for that.


let's get the good stuff out of the way first...

the story line and the writing both are amazing... in the hands of a more capable director, this movie could've been an excellent movie.

the story has all the elements that could attract a viewer, from the good building of the problem, the attraction, the deliberate misguiding to the twists at the end. (but no comedy whatsoever)..

but it was really really really bad directed, and you can notice that from the very first shot of the film. a summer trained director trying his luck, and thinking that having a star like Hayden Panettiere can sell the movie - which i don't know why she agreed to do the movie in the first place?? being that she's totally in her prime...

there are some characters in the movie that were in it only for the purpose of the felling of an empty 5 minutes or something, there are characters that appeared in the beginning of the movie, and it was set in my mind that this character will play an important rule in the story line, but suddenly i didn't see that character again!!!!

overall, it was below medium, and really what a sham, it could've been something really good.

my vote is 3 out of 10


This movie was very interesting. The movie starts out with a man teaching his class and telling the audience some background information. The whole aspect behind the movie is the event that a teacher has a school boy crush on one of his students,then she gets kidnapped, and he is the one that actually tries to find who the kidnapper is and where Ally is. During this investigation, he finds out some disturbing information about his perverted co-worker, and some other students. He also finds that the father of Ally is more concerned about his business and sex life then he is about his daughter. The students and faculty are all convinced that he has something to do with the kidnapping, and he is questioned and interrogated many times. With some interesting plot twists and and fair storyline, I enjoyed this movie. But, from the title, I would like to say that there was no reason what so ever to have the scene of nudity in it that it did, it was purely disgusting. With that being said, I give this movie a 7/10.


After watching this teacher teaching high school history, you know why some of our teaching is bad as well as this film.

This teacher is as dull as they come. Dressing up like Lincoln at his March, 1861 Inaugural was really the absolute nonsense here.

To make matters worse, our miserable teacher is the narrator in this ridiculous movie with a genre of black comedy. It is just ultimately ridiculous.

This teacher is leading a dull life as well and all that changes with the kidnapping of one of his students. You would think that this would become an interesting who did it, but the whole film falls apart. The kidnapped girl's father acts erratically. What father of a kidnapped teenager would go on television and reduce the prices of his car as a motivation to get his daughter back?

Dad should have been investigated immediately. There is something radically wrong with the writing here. This is a complete joke.


The movie makes the best out of a fairly unique story that is probably based on true historical facts. It is about a one day expedition to Amsterdam in May 1940, shortly before the arrival of the invading German troops. In a race against time exiled Dutch jewelers try to get all the industrial diamonds out of the country and bring them to Britain before the Germans can take them. It is a quick in and out operation organised by the British government that has to be accomplished in one day - and no easy task as the jewelers have to be convinced by sheer argument it is the right and sensible thing to do (hard to decide in the Netherlands in May 1940, I am certain).

In a strange way this movie is surrealistic and realistic at the same time. There is a lot of good location shooting, the sun drenched streets of Amsterdam are virtually deserted, the atmosphere is ghostly. At times there is gunfire in the distance. There are some disoriented Dutch soldiers hanging around, or shall I say loitering? The effect is strangely threatening. At one time two groups of soldiers start shooting at each other. In another scene, one of the day trippers steps into a pub in a totally empty square. And there they are, the Dutch! Sitting peacefully behind their pints and discussing the latest news from the front. The transition really took me completely by surprise, it was incongruous but strangely effective and somehow totally believable.

There are harrowing scenes. When the day trippers disembark, the harbour is in chaos and full of refugees  a strong contrast to the mentioned deserted streets in the town center. When they finally succeed in organising a meeting with all of Amsterdam's important jewelers, their Jewish colleagues express the opinion that for them it might be wiser not to make the Germans angry by giving away the jewels. They can be convinced to agree to the evacuation of the stones that are invaluable to the armament industry, although it is made perfectly clear that the day trippers can take no refugees with them. All these issues are treated in a rational and unemotional way which actually strengthens the impact of the tragic situation.

In addition the movie also has some action scenes, a car chase and, as the culmination of the absurd general situation, the heist of a jewel depository by partisans who help the day trippers, with an ensuing fierce shootout with a detachment of Dutch troops. The acting is good, Peter Finch (Network) is cool as usual and gives a convincing performance as the son of an eminent Amsterdam jeweler and leader of the expedition. Eva Bartok is stylishly beautiful and enigmatic as a Dutch woman with uncertain alignments who joins the day trippers after they saved her from a suicide attempt (driving her car over the pier in the harbor, a car, incidentally, that comes in mighty handy). So, a hell of a lot goes on in Operation Amsterdam.


Operation Amsterdam is a pleasant surprise. It has both a strong story and some unusual cinematic touches to keep the viewer interested.

The story of the British secret service agents who are sent to Amsterdam to recover industrial diamonds before the German invasion is a familiar one, and their eventual safe escape is predictable enough.

What interested me was the atmosphere of fear and bleakness that the producers manage to convey. The empty streets, in bright sunlight; the columns of fleeing people; the confusion of not knowing who are enemies or friends, makes for a better than average effects.

Added to this a score made only with drums, and some very abrupt editing that is almost painful to watch, makes this a worthwhile watch.


The 'flaws' noted above are not really that serious. Firstly, yes the sudden appearance of Willem suggested a cut scene, a frequent occurrence in many movies, owing to pacing and duration considerations - could have been better handled, but it was explained briefly. Secondly, the various groups of Dutch soldiers, some fighting each other, was fully explained several times in the dialogue - the city has been infiltrated with German fifth columnists, and nobody is sure who is friend or foe! In the battle scene by the canal the late arrivals have been sent by the man at the government department, to help the 'good guys'. Thirdly, you are correct that the OFFICIAL Dutch resistance was not yet organised, but the resistance fighters in the story are early volunteers who are trying to hamper the German occupation of Amsterdam, and will no doubt form the nucleus of the resistance movement that would soon follow. So, you see, not really serious flaws at all!


This movie has a premise with a lot of potential: a small group of agents has a just 14 hours to get into Amsterdam and take out all the industrial diamonds there. But the movie is ruined by three gigantic flaws.

First, it is incompetently edited. It is obvious that some key scenes were left out and as a result, the plot is hard to follow. For example, at one point the agents go off to visit the mother of one of them. The next time we see them, they are back from the visit and have a new character, Willem, with them. All we get is a one sentence explanation for who he is and why he is with them.

Second, the motivations of the various Dutch army units are baffling and never explained. Some of them help the agents while others try to kill the agents. At some points, different Dutch army units shoot at each other. We are never told why some of them are trying to kill the agents. Are they disloyal soldiers trying to help the Germans? Or do they believe that the agents are working for the Germans? Or do they think the diamonds should stay in Holland even if it is overrun by the Germans? Or do they think the Germans will fail to capture Amsterdam and, thus, it is unnecessary to take the diamonds out?

Third, a group of about a dozen Dutch civilians help the agents get diamonds out of a bank safe and blow up a oil storage facility. It is never explained who these people are. They are not the Dutch underground. That was formed only after the Germans overran Holland; but this movie is set before they'd captured Amsterdam.


This is absolutely my favorite film of Robert Cummings. He's hysterical and lovable in every scene he is in. Bob plays a lawyer who is newly divorced from Rosalind Russell, and is determined to win her back. She on the other hand is determined to become a federal judge and wants nothing to do with him. A typical setup for the divorce-remorse films that came along in the 40s.

Then there's Gig Young as the rival for Russell's affection, Clem Bevans as Mr. Roogle (it rhymes with bugle) and Marie McDonald adding a funny twist as the witness who keeps stalking Bob. For the most part, the cast is on top of their game and has some great moments. However, be forewarned, this is not Rosalind Russell's best work by a long shot. Despite the fact that she's given some wonderful performances (Auntie Mame, Trouble With Angels, etc) she's not very strong here and this is one situation where I really think another actress should have been cast. (Too bad Carole Lombard was already gone - she would have been PERFECT.) Some time the twists go a bit too far and get rather tedious on repeat watchings, but this is the screwball genre - it's not supposed to be realistic. It's a fun movie that still makes me laugh no matter how many times I see it. What more can you ask for?


Rosalind Russell is the Judge in "Tell it to the Judge," a 1949 film also starring Bob Cummings, Marie McDonald and Gig Young. Russell plays Marsha Meredith, a recently divorced woman up for a judgeship, encouraged in her career by her judge grandfather (Harry Davenport). The ex-husband, however, Pete Webb (Cummings) wants her back. The two are still in love. The divorce was basically a misunderstanding - Webb was working with a beautiful blond witness (McDonald) and Marsha mistook it for something else. Even though it puts her career in jeopardy, Marsha remarries Pete. On their wedding night, her grandfather kidnaps Pete so that Marsha thinks he's up to his old tricks. She then takes off and announces to the press that she's married to someone else, and makes up a name. When Alexander (Gig Young), a man she met previously appears, she has him play the part of her husband.

This is a typical screwball comedy centering around the struggle that the independent woman has between being a career person and a wife - and apparently back then, it was one or the other. I thought Russell was fine as Marsha, unlike another reviewer - I've seen her miscast, and I didn't think she was this time - but I agree with another remark the poster made, that Bob Cummings steals the movie. Cummings is thought of as a bland film actor, and perhaps he was. What made him a tremendous television star was his sense of comedy, which he didn't get to use much in films but which was his strength. Here he gets to show it off, and a few years later, he made his mark in television.

A fun movie, not earth-shattering, as films were going through a difficult transition. So apparently were women, and in the '40s, they lost the career battle, only to pick it up again a couple of decades later.


Thin comedy rests solely on the appeal of the stars, and Rosalind Russell and Robert Cummings are a very companionable screen-team. She's a smart, sharp, yet somewhat clumsy lady lawyer--being nominated for judgeship--whose career may be hindered by her association with Cummings, the no-goodnik ex-husband still in love with her. Some funny set-pieces (such as Roz's bit involving a lipstick mistake) and a predictably sunny, smooth supporting performance by Gig Young as a dashing Romeo make it tolerable, but the script and characters are really second hand. There's a curious, but ridiculous skiing sequence that serves no purpose (except to make Cummings look foolish) and Norman Foster's direction is balky. ** from ****


This movie debuted the same year as ADAM'S RIB and both screwball comedies have a lot in common. Both films are about couples where both spouses are lawyers and both involve the couples going through marital difficulties brought on by their jobs.

The film begins with Rosalind Russell undergoing a confirmation hearing to make her a federal judge. However, her ex-husband (Robert Cummings) appears at the trial and does everything he can to discredit her. He wants her back in the worst way and will do anything to get her attention. Surprisingly, he is able to scheme his way into agreeing to remarry. However, due to the scheming of her grandfather (Henry Stevenson), Cummings disappears on his wedding night and Russell has had enough--she absolutely won't take him back, as she has no idea that Stevenson was behind the disappearance. And, for that matter, neither does Cummings know how he suddenly woke up on a train headed for Charlotte, North Carolina...and with a suitcase filled with women's clothes!

The press has found out that Russell has married but they have no idea to whom. She doesn't want to admit that she remarried her ex- and they are already going to get another divorce, so she quickly concocts a crazy tale about her husband getting killed on their wedding day! This "Mr. Rugle" was apparently heading to South America and crashed in Guatemala!!! When Cummings arrives, he informs everyone that Rugle is NOT dead but has survived in order to put Russell on the spot. But, in a case of GOOD quick-thinking (as opposed to her crazy Rugle story), she finds a stand-in to pretend to be Rugle. Now what is Cummnigs to do?! There's a lot more to this screwball comedy.

While the story is patently silly and tough to believe (and then some), it is high-energy and most enjoyable. Cummings steals the show and shows his deftness with comedy and I'd watch Russell in any comedy, as they always turn out great. It also helped that Gig Young was on hand to play Mr. Rugle--and seeming to enjoy taking advantage of the situation. And, in turn, Cummings did everything he could do to come between them.

By the way, try reading up on co-star Marie McDonald--her IMDb profile is bizarre yet fascinating.


This film is a delicate and thoughtful celebration of life, not only because of the beautiful rendering of family-life in its highs and lows but also because of the uplifting message director Van De Sande Bakhuysen leaves with his audience. For somebody who had to live with the knowing that he would die of cancer, the director urges the audience to stop looking for guilt or even forced happiness and start life from this moment on. The film itself may be masked propaganda for conformity and bourgeoisie, but delivers a satisfying and tear jerking portrait of love lost and refound but most importantly about the responsibility we all have not only to make ourselves happy but also the people around us, who rely on us for their joy in life.


That is the one of the movies I really liked to see, it made me cry and impressed me greatly.))))))))))) I would say it is about forgiving. Main character forgives herself and her mother. :) Actually i went to this film together with my colleague on European Cinema Week in Almaty, Kazakhstan. And I saw her hiding crying). Maybe it seems to be kinda sentimental, but I like film that make me think about something after I went out of cinema hall. I really think it is film of good quality. And the fact that its Director died just one day before its release is very sad. I would like to buy it, I hope I will be able to see it with my DVD format. Best,


This movie is about how important it is to live your life to the fullest. To live your dreams, follow your instincts, to resist social pressure, stay true to yourself, to become who you really are. Leading character Anna, a hard-working wife and mother of two daughters, has always wanted to be a writer. But her work, husband and two daughters have always stood between her and her passion. A sick daughter, an unfaithful husband, a demanding old mother, and her own social commitment make it hard for her to sit down and write her autobiography. Then dramatic events make her realize that she has only one mission: to be a writer, to finally live! ('Leef'!) Several different sub-stories develop and finally come together in a breathtaking, jubilant climax. Award-winning script-writer Maria Goos is at her best here, and so is director Willem van de Sande-Bakhuysen, who was terminally ill when the shooting started and who died shortly after 'Live! was completed.


I was studying at the University of Amsterdam last year when I would pass the movie theater in Haarlemstrat(sp) and see the announcement for the film. I wanted so much to see the film especially because of Monic Hendrickx, but the film was not subtitled yet for English. Recently I found it on Amazon. It had English subtitles and it was in PAL, but since I own several PAL movies, I now own a portable DVD player that plays all regions. Alas, after a long wait, I was not disappointed. It is a celebration of life and I felt inspired by it. I hope this film is more widely recognized because it was perfect in every way. A few years back Zeus and Zo, another Dutch film, was nominated for the Academy Awards. I have nothing against Z&Z, but Leef should not be overlooked.


Leef! Is about Anna (Monic Hendrickx), an obstetrician and her family. Her real dream is to be a writer, but because of her mother she never had the self-confidence to become one. They have a problem as a family, in fact they have everything but they don't manage to feel happy. One of her daughters is a problem child and the other one has a weak heart and her husband Paul (Peter Blok) is cheating on her.

The premiere of Leef! was a real strange one, that was because of the director Willem van de Sande Bakhuyzen died just two days before the premiere. I had a real double feeling about it because I'm a big fan of him so it was difficult the give an objective judge about the movie right away. Now it's a while ago and I think I can do it.

Leef! is a great movie. First of all the acting in this movie is fantastic. Monic Hendrickx and Peter Blok are good as always, but also Sophie van Winden was great, it's one of her first movies, she did a great job. The camera is moving constantly, which creates entity in the movie. The music also creates the right feeling. The last days I heard a few times that people link this movie with movies like Magnolia and Short cuts. I don't think that's right. Leef! is good enough to judge it on itself. What is also said a lot is the the movie is (too) complex, indeed you have to think and pay attention to get everything, but since when is that not a good point. I like it to watch a movie actively. Of course there are also a few minuses, at the end there are too much improbabilities and cliché's to add everything together. So at the end it is too much of a feel good movie. But don't get me wrong, Leef! is a fantastic movie that shows real problems and that is harrowing to see. Leef! is about people, it's a movie with a heart and it is really a must to see.

I'm looking forward to see the last movie of Willem van de Sande Bakhuyzen, Ik omhels je met 1000 armen, which you can see in 2006.


I expected a lot from this director and the screenwriter, their previous cooperation on 'Cloaca' led to a masterpiece. This film however is a big disaster. It contains too many dramatic events spread over too many characters. Everybody in this film is totally wasted, the dialog is purely psychological jadajada and serves no function in telling a story that connects the different characters in a plot. As a viewer it is impossible to connect to one of the characters for longer than 2 minutes, their problems are merely unbelievable entertainment that just goes in with your popcorn but does not have any meaning. What also puzzles me is why they did not work with the same Director of Photography as in Cloaca, as it looked fantastic. Leef! however has a bleached out look, Using very hard light on the faces of the characters, I guess the idea was to enlarge their mental status by making them look more tormented, not very interesting to look at though.


With Simon well over a year ago, I had high hopes for Dutch cinema. This was a great film, about genuine people dealing with all things life (and death) in a genuine way. At least it got some well-deserved recognition outside the Netherlands, although I'm not sure how the movie performed across the pond- but I guess it stirred things up quite a bit in the US because of its daring content.

Anyway, for those expecting Leef! to prolong the high standard set by Simon, prepare to be vastly disappointed. The film is incredibly pretentious in style and presentation. Why did it have to take 108 minutes of awkward dialogue and often pointless scenes to get to that point? I have no problem with it being pretentious, but not living up to it I do have a problem with. The camera-work and editing, especially in the first half, are overly artsy, sometimes hysterical and often completely unnecessary. On the contrary, it harms some of the (admittedly fine) performances in such a way that we cannot relate to the characters in any way, except for maybe Sybille, played by Anne-Wil Blankers, a great actress who is wholly out of place here. Jeroen Krabbé, always a treat, has a small part which is fine, but ruined by the horrific editing in that particular scene. A shame, I say.

The dialogue is typical Dutch theatre fare, in that it is overly pretentious and artificial, which is a major gripe I have with Dutch theatre anyway. Even though this might have worked better on stage, it's still far too stiff and and insignificant to make the audience relate to the characters on an emotional level. Why not just trim it down and get to the point? Being mundane is no sin if the delivery is good. Here we the see actors struggling with lines they themselves most likely found to be awkward, which explains the wooden acting on the whole, I guess.

Overall, what could have been a wonderful film about (family) life is a missed opportunity. This film gets lost in its own pretentiousness because of its lack of content and genuine emotional depth. Which, ultimately, to me, makes it a pointless affair.


There have been five films released with the title RIDING HIGH. This 1943 effort is a very slight attempt at a musical. It has seven numbers (Whistling in the Light of Day, Secretary of the Sultan, Injun Gal, Till the All Clear Came, You're The Rainbow, Get Your Man, Willie, the Wolf of the West) - all completely forgettable, as is the dull plot re a young man (Powell) trying to raise money to work a mine, the daughter of the man he has hoodwinked (Lamour) and a counterfeiter (Moore) who proposes not to pass bad currency but to simply flourish it in the belief that those who believe someone has money will be willing to invest in projects. Cass Daley's broad and tiresome humor nearly sinks the enterprise and there is an excruciatingly long and very unfunny sequence involving Gil Lamb and an orchestra run amok. The Academy did give it a nom for Sound, which was deserved (crisp and resonant and sound effects included in a climactic wagon chase sequence), but for the general public this piece of fluff is not worth bothering to see.


**SPOILERS** WWII war movie about the fabled "Flying Tigers" who battled the Japanese over the skies of China as early as 1937, four years before the attack on Pearl Harbor, and amassed a record of air-to-air combat kills against the Japanese air force of something like 40 to 1.

The story "God is my Co-Pilot" actually begins in the summer of 1942 with USAF ace Col. Scott, Dennis Morgan, depressed and heart-broken because he can't be part of a major air assault against Japanese forces in China. The movie goes into a flashback where we see how Scott got interested in flying as a young boy back in Georgia and eventually joined the USAF ending up in China as the first US military man to become a member of the "Flying Tigers"; The Tigers were exclusively made up of foreign, mostly Americans,volunteers.

As you would expect the "Flying Tigers" airmen aren't that hip to a USAF man who's well over combat age, Scott is 34, joining up with their exclusive flying fighters squadrons. In no time at all Scott gets the hang of it and he becomes the hero, and to the battered and bloodied Japs,villain in the Chinese Theater of War. Back home in Macon Georga Scott's exploits make the front pages and his score of air-to air kills against the Japs are posted daily as if it was the score of a Championship Football or World Series Baseball game.

The movie "God is my Co-Pilot" also has a Japanese villain in the person of Japanese air ace Tokyo Joe, Richard Loo, an American educated Japanese combat pilot who, by the number of USAF kill decals under the side-window of his Zero, seemed to have accounted for all the "Flying Tiger" P-40's shot down in China. Scott has a number of encounters with Tokyo Joe during the air combat in the movie and finally shoots him out of the sky by faking that he's in trouble, his engine is on fire, tricking Joe to lose his composure and overshoot his P-40. Scott ends up putting Joe right in the middle of his cross-hairs and thus became history and yesterdays news. Scott on a mission over Japanese held Hong Kong, where he downed Tokyo Joe, loses control of his plane and crashes and is given up for dead only to show up later alive and rescued by the local Chinese peasants.

Dennis Morgan is both brave and humble as Col. Robert Lee Scott and even at the hight of the fighting has second thoughts about killing people, Japanese soldiers, even in wartime. Raymond Massey is excellent as the "Flying Tiger" commanded Gen Claire L. Chennault who answers Scott prayers at the end of the movie by giving him one last chance to go into combat. this after he was rendered useless as a combat pilot because of his nerves being shattered, from the combat missions he already flew, and the tropical illnesses he contracted in China. We never really get to know how Scott's last mission turned out since the movie ends before it even begins.

Watching the movie it's obvious that it was non-other then Richard Loo as the wise-cracking Japanese air ace Tokyo Joe who has the best lines, which he delivers in perfect English, and the scenes with him interacting with the USAF and "Flying Tiger" pilots, like Col. Scott, are by far the best in the movie.


Here in Atlanta we mourn the death Monday, February 27th of General Robert L. Scott, ace and author of the book from which this classic movie was made. Scott owed $25,00 in back taxes after publishing his (most successful) book in the Summer of 1943 - during the height of WW II. His publisher advanced the tax money to him and gave him another assignment. The result: "Damned to Glory". Other books include "Runway to the Sun", Look of the Eagle", Tiger in the Sky and another classic IMHO: "Chennault of China". They don't make 'em - men and movies - like this any more. Scott to his last days was a fixture at the renowned Museum of Avation in Warner Robins, GA. He was always very helpful and full of stories with which to inform and regale the museum patrons. He will be sorely missed. Get the movie and the book and savor them like old wine.


The story is loosely based on Robert L. Scott's autobiography. The picture made towards the end of World War II is a fairly typical war time film. The story does give some accurate details on the Flying Tigers and there total dominance over the numerically superior Japanese forces. Colonel Scott was a legitimate ace during the war and his story is worth watching. I rated this a 7.


This film was made as WWII was ending. The main interest in it was the exciting aerial photography used in it. For a propaganda film, "God Is My Co-Pilot" presents one aspect of the conflict in the Far East. It's a story about bravery and courage as the young pilots of The Flying Tigers fought the conflict.

The story of a war hero, Colonel Robert Scott, is at the center of the film. Col. Scott knew no fear as he took to the air. His comrades, the other pilots of the squadron, admired him deeply as he set a clear example about how to serve his country unselfishly. The air combats shown in the film must have been amazing to the audiences of the time in which the movie was released.

Robert Flarey directed a film that made those young aces heroes in what would become the powerful might of the Air Force in future conflicts. Dennis Morgan was perfect as Col. Scott, the man who knew no fear. Raymond Massey plays General Chennault. Alan Hale appears as the friendly priest Big Mike. Some other familiar faces in the cast, Dane Clark, Mark Stevens, Craig Stevens, and other.

The only thing with the print recently shown by TCM looks as though the film was re-dubbed as the dialog doesn't match the lip movements of the actors in the film.


The Flying Tigers roared onto the screen and into the imagination in two fairly good films: The Flying Tigers with John Wayne and God is My Co-Pilot, based upon the real life experiences of Colonel Scott. WWII was nothing like the politically correct war of current vintage. The American people did not love their enemy; they would have used the enemy's sacred writings for wholly sanitary purposes and bragged of the experience. The movie correctly shows this. On the other hand, in the spirit of Greater American Democracy, plenty of Neisi and Chinese actors had jobs as extras smiling at bombs away in the halycon years of the WW II propaganda movie.

The book is still worth reading even today. More than a mere autobiography or piece of US war propaganda, Scott tells of the conflict between Chennault and Stillwell, the destruction of the Flying Tigers, the eclipse of the Chinese Nationalists and the rise of Mao.

The movie has one glaring historical error in the movie: The July 4 1942 raid did not take place. The original AVG refused to fly.


This story of great Americans who fought to preserve out safety and way of life, illustrates that like George Washington and all of the Founding Fathers..We must continue to believe in and have faith in the God that inspired the creators of this nation.. Alan Hale who plays the priest always amazed me. He could do broad comedy and then give heart touching performances as he does in this film. Before Charlton Heston, there was Raymond Massey who made a career of portraying historical characters beautifully. Finally Dennis Morgan who plays flying ace Scott made many great movies and this is one of them. Why he has become almost totally forgotten remains a mystery to me.. A wonderful, inspirational film..I totally recommend it.. John Wayne Schlatter


When I was a little boy I first watched this movie in Denver, Colorado for the admission price of 35 cents. It was a great movie to see at that young age and fell in love with Alan Hale sr. the actor. I always tryed to see any film with him in it. Russ Tafoya.....Rest In Peace Mr. Alan Hale


This movie helped the P40 to become my favorite warplane of all time. They used E models for the filming of this movie which would have been correct for mid-1942. The enemy planes incorrectly referred to as Zeroes were actually AT6 Texans which were almost always used in other movies as well. The flying scenes were filmed at Luke Air Force base in Arizona. The Flying Tigers fought against the Japanese Air Force which flew Ki-43 'Oscars'. The Imperial Navy pilots flew the Zero and were not involved in that conflict. The other thing that you see written often about the Flying Tigers is that they were fighting the Japanese "years before" Pearl Harbor. The truth is only Chenault was in China in the '30's helping out. The ground crews, pilots, and planes were not in place until November of 1941. Their first combat mission occurred on December 20, 13 days AFTER Pearl Harbor. Dennis Morgan, Alan Hale, & Richard Loo play their characters very well. Some people today are offended by all of the racial slurs that are uttered. But when this movie was made in 1945, the Japanese were the hated villains. The soldier's dilemma of taking lives as their duty versus what the 10 commandments says is dealt with tastefully in this movie. It's an enjoyable film that represents movies of the 1940's well.


Considering the slur's used against the Japanese that I have heard since I can remember, was one used in the movie. I have seen this movie from the time I was six years old. Toyko Joe having missed shooting down Col. Scott, hides in the clouds and sends his two wing men to get him. Col. Scott says to him over the radio,"You wait right up there Joe, while I play Dixie on these two buck tooth pals of yours." I was surprised it was never changed, dubbed over. I have always enjoyed Mr. Loo's acting in all the Charlie Chan movies as his # 2 son. The fact he did a comedic part made it worse when he showed up as the evil Tokyo Joe.


"A Philosophizing Irish Priest Is My Co-Pilot". One of the silliest war movies ever. A dumb old film about pilots who can hardly wait to have their behinds blown to bits and strewn across the Asian sky. They all remind me of a similar side-character in "Black Adder 4". Watching this film, I realized just how much I was missing having some level-headed characters with a down-to-earth approach to flying missions, such as in Heller's "Catch-22" (one of the best books ever written, by the way). These dopes actually change their mind about going back home and decide to continue fighting just because some Jap taunted them over the radio! Are these people grown-ups or embryos? About as realistic as the lyrics in "I Am The Walrus". The dialogues are stiff and dull, and often supremely silly. Silly to the extent that some of the exchanges could have been written by none other than Ed Wood himself; an example would be the conversation between the hero and his girl. The Japanese pilots are nearly always shown grinning devilishly, and their flying skills are always poor - except for a character called Tokyo Joe, who taunts his American opponents with a series of comic-book-like phrases, all of which end with "yank". Then there is the wise old Irish priest, a walking movie cliché, with an unrivaled reservoir of "hope-inspiring" speeches. "Yes... More dreams have been brought about by prayer than this world dreams of", he says at the end, and I will leave that uncommented. (No, I won't: so what he is implying is that people must be constantly praying for natural disasters, wars, disease and misery.) Another unintentionally amusing Irish moment is when our hero pours out some of his deeper thoughts to the priest and the priest's first reaction is to say "You're confused." And yet another silly scene, involving our blessed Irishman of the cloth, is when he gives one of his grandiose speeches to our hero in a plane about belief in God, and the weather suddenly improves. Oh, yes; there's also the sausage-shaped dog who sniffs out the Japs from ten miles.


I saw this movie on TV as a kid and enjoyed it thoroughly -- Flying Tigers!

I saw it again on TV tonight for the second time, and found it to be a howler from beginning to end. It's easy enough to find effective, cheaply made flag-waving propaganda movies made during the war years that have redeeming qualities, properties that make them worth watching. They may be no more than suspenseful actioners, like "Destination Tokyo," or may have more thoughtful narratives embedded in the framework, like Hawks' "Air Force." "God is My Co-Pilot" hasn't got much of anything except a few minutes of good aerial photography. In the air, as usual, a kind of war-time trainer called the "Texan" substitutes for the Japanese Zero-sen, as it did in "Tora! Tora! Tora!" The P-40s are attractive airplanes, with clean lines, although they appear to be Model Es rather than the Cs the AVG used. A small matter. In any case, you can only admire the airplanes for so long before the story line and dialog begin to intrude into your consciousness. Scott's book was a simple, straightforward autobiography. The movie is piled high with extraneous material based on two themes: (1) a vicious and unrelenting racism that must have been offensive to some Americans over the age of ten even in 1945, and (2) something to do with whether Scott believes in God or not -- or was it the other way around? The dialog stretches desperately to reach upward to the level of banality but doesn't quite make it. I think I should give a few examples and leave it at that. Japanese pilot {played by Hawaiian-born Chinese-American Richard Loo} called "Tokyo Joe" radioing to a P-40 he has lined up in his sights: "Just hold it right there, Yank." P-40 pilot radioing back: "Don't call me Yank; I'm from Georgia." American pilot radioing to a Japanese pilot he's shooting down: "Don't look now, but your Zero's showing." American pilot to another Japanese going down in flames: "Now you're a good Jap." General Chennault watching from the ground with a big smile as his pilots slaughter the Japanese: "The boys must be in a good mood today." The real life epilogue? Chennault was a pretty clever guy, forsooth, trained his AVG mercenaries very effectively, and warned everyone back in the Western Hemisphere that the Japanese Zero was a remarkably maneuverable fighter, better than anything we had. (His warning was ignored; the Zero came as a big surprise after Pearl Harbor.) There was no room in the U. S. Army Air Force for a hero like Chennault, who had carved out a reputation in some other air force, namely the Chinese, and he was promptly "disappeared." The original AVG pilots were given the choice of becoming just another couple of guys in the Army Air Force or being kicked out and sent back to the states. AVG disbanded. End of Flying Tigers, except in our national mythology.


Only a complete curmudgeon could dislike this film. It's a brilliant slapstick parody of the spy/private eye genres with the Baadshah of Bollywood himself, Shahrukh Khan, hamming it up gloriously as a slightly dim-witted private detective who is innocently drawn into a conspiracy to assassinate the prime minister of India. The hilariously complex plot of mistaken identities and spy/counter spy is so twisted it took me several viewings to actually make it all out. (The fact that I was having to read subtitles didn't help) Surprisingly, the story holds together much better than it seemed to at first.

Bollywood is notorious for stealing from Hollywood, and Baadshah is no exception. (For all you other non-Hindi speakers, "Baadshah" means King, like the one in a deck of cards) The opening dance number, Main Te Hoon Pagal, is clearly inspired by the "Cuban Pete" song from "The Mask", and later on whole scenes are copied nearly frame for frame from a couple of Jackie Chan movies: Mr. Nice Guy and Rush Hour. The results are just great good fun.

The high point has to be the campy, outrageous "Baadshah, O Baadshah" nightclub number with Khan strutting his stuff amid a huge chorus of dancers in a whirl of silver lame and pyrotechnics. For a guy who claims to be a very bad dancer, he has an easy grace and agility that makes him a joy to watch.

Khan's performance in Baadshah is perfect. The comedy is fantastic, and there isn't a dull moment. The supporting cast, including Twinkle Khanna, Johnny Lever (if you can stand him), and the ever-essential villain, Amrish Puri, are wonderful. Like most Hindi films, there's a mish-mash of everything you can imagine: drama, slapstick comedy, teary-eyed pathos (gotta see the Khan cry at least once in every film), romance (gotta see the hero dance around trees at least once in every film) high-tech James Bond gadgets, hilariously bad special effects; Baadshah has it all!


I love watching this movie because it's just so funny. Sharukh Khan was fantastic in the film and so was Jhonny Lever.My favourite part in the film is when Sharukh Khan lies to Twinkle Khanna about being blind and Sharukh Khan and Jhonny Lever and they partners pretend that Sharukh Khans house is the hospital.I also enjoyed the fighting parts because it was well put together. Sharukh Khan was good at playing the Baadshah and the comedian. Sharukh Khan and Twinkle Khanna were good working together.Shahrukh Khan is a detective and while he is doing his detective work he falls in love with Twinkle Khanna. Amrish Puri was a good villain in this film as he is in nearly all of his villain movies.