I like this show, it has an outstanding cast, a good plot and a very interesting story line. This is a fun movie to watch. I just wish someone would start making movie and/ or mini series like this again. This is so much better than the stuff that passes for entertainment now that it's pathetic. I cannot understand how shows like Deadwood can endure and shows like this not be available at all. This is one of the shows that should be available on DVD. This is one of the great westerns made for TV that in someone's infinite wisdom isn't available yet and may never be. It joins a list including "How the West Was Won" (maybe the best western series ever), The Lazurus Man and Peacemakers. "How the West Was Won" would draw a premium price.Single episode VHS tapes recorded from television are bringing $18.


Wild Times is a real piece of crap. A Don "Red" Barry movie from the early forties has more intelligence than this tripe. The dialogue was dumb, the storyline was dumber, and the acting was way below par. My wife and I got stuck watching all three hours and twenty one minutes of this valueless video on the Westerns Channel, hoping that as time wore on it would get better. It never did. It started out mildly okay, then went downhill from there. Some movie moguls must have had a lot of cash and nothing to do to waste their time and everyone elses with this worthless western. If you have the choice of watching Wild Times or rearranging your sock drawer - do the socks. It'll be more entertaining.


I was in Australia when this miniseries premiered, and raced home each night to watch it. My host, on the last night, handed me and his wife a box of tissues and told us we were going to need it. He wasn't kidding!!

The Eastwick family struggles through a century of world wars,famine, drought, and boon times but is cursed. Whatever Richard Eastwick loves, he loses. Whether it is bad timing or missed chances or just the normal "gotcha" of life, he has plenty of things, but no someone with which to share it. Beautiful cinematography, strong characterization and acting, haunting music, and Australia itself makes this miniseries unforgettable.

I, too, would like to own this on video or DVD. My host had taped the whole production, but I was unsure if the VCRs were compatible, so I left the videos there. Dumb, dumb, dumb. Please let us know if it ever becomes available for sale - even in Australia!


'This is the land of my childhood. The oldest land on earth. The place of endless summer and soaring skies. This is Australia. The Outback. A harsh and unforgiving land. I can look back on it now across the track of 80 years and still remember what it was like. Standing on the very edge of a new frontier. Nature seemed much grander then, the stars are closer, the sun is hotter, the rivers wider and in my minds eye I can see all of us, moving through this giant landscape like a strange nomadic tribe. We were the drovers, the prospectors, squatters, and shearers. We were bushmen, simple men. The shape of our lives hammered out by drought and fire. All except for one. The outback could never forge him. He forged the outback. Tonight I want to tell you about the only man who ever tamed this land. Richard Eastwick. From out of nowhere he built an empire, yet like any man who tries to write his will across the sky, he paid the price'


Awesome epic. Now available on DVD. Grew up watching this time and time again and now have the pleasure of re-watching it on DVD. Not a lot of features but who needs them. You have 7.5hrs of viewing pleasure. I have found an unnatural ability to quote every inch of this saga. I can only say it's left an impression on me. It was my first introduction to Hugo Weaving, way before the Matrix.

The music is what I remember most about this story. Very emotive. You can't help but feel sad at each turn of fate. Very different kind of story to movies such as LOTR, no special effects, just good story.

I recommend watching this if you love epics, Australia or a good sob story!


A very compelling saga spanning three generations of one family on both sides of the world. All characters were portrayed well adding to the emotional value. It also explained some of the usually unmentioned treatment of prisoners of war at the hands of the Japanese.


I watched this epic when it was first released on Aussie TV. I was 18. I watched it again this week and enjoyed it even more. THis drama is well written, the cinematography is simply stunning and the talent is fabulous.

Hugo Weaving plays a magnificent portrayal of a man who's life long quest to build an empire in the Australia Outback.

Living in the Central West and well not really that far from Nevertire where the story is based, I understand the trials and tribulations of life in the bush.

Steve Jacobs by far is my favourite in this film.

I could watch this over and over. There are no special features, no fan fare or special effects. The film relies sole on a wonderful story and fantastic actors.

I highly recommend this to anyone!


I am so glad to see that The Dirtwater Dynasty has been released on DVD. This is the sad part - it is only out in PAL format, and I have NTSC. I don't suppose someone has been so nice as to dub it into the NTSC format? This is such a great mini-series, and a terrible loss to folks in the U.S. who won't get to watch it. It would be so nice if one of the independent networks would pick it up. After all, we can purchase "A Town Like Alice", which is another good one. Hugo Weaving is strong in his portrayal, that it is a shame it isn't better known outside of Australia. Oh well, I have waited a long time to purchase this mini-series. I guess a few more years won't make that big a difference. Something this powerful never leaves your mind, and the music you can never forget.


Just read the last post on here and the person who posted it was saying how much they would love to own the DVD. Well, I got it,3 disc boxset,off ebay and it came from Australia,costing me a mere £21. So I just thought I would share this info with you as I had previously tried for years to get hold of this fantastic little known miniseries without success.Remembered watching it when it originally aired on BBC in 88/89 and since then it has always stuck in the back of my mind as aone of those "Must own" series. But now you know from someone who physically has it, it IS available on DVD. If ebay don't have it for sale,a trawl through the net may be in order but to be honest I would have paid twice as much to get hold of this. If I had any gripe with the series it was probably the absolute bad luck that befalls Mr Eastwick throughout his life seems to be never-ending.As smart as the ending is,I couldn't help but feel gutted for him at the way events had panned out and hoped it would give a happy ending.You will just have to watch all 8 hours of it if you have never seen it before to find out what happens. Like the previous entry said,have a box of hankies ready.I hope this helps any prospective owners out.


I first watched "The Dirtwater Dynasty" on Channel 7 with my father. We were both glued to the TV. I was really upset for the fact that I didn't tape it. However, my cousin had taped it and I remember one time watching it over and over again. My dad and I LOVED IT so much. After my dad had a stroke he lost a lot of his speech, but I remember my dad saying to me "Eastwick" and I knew he was talking about this mini-series... I so much want to buy a copy of "The Dirtwater Dynasty" on VHS or DVD for my father. I have called the Australian Television Association and requested numerous times to play it on TV so that I could record it, but I've had no luck.

I wish it was for sale!!! A must see mini-series.


There were some goofs which spoiled the greatest Mini series ever. The most significant was the calculation of age as opposed to time. In 1897, David Eastwick was born, yet in 1902 he was nine years old, five years after being born. Nancy Eastwick was born around that time, yet her fake gravestone read 1906. Josh would have been around ten years older than Eastwick, yet they appeared to be the same age when they got old. Accuracy of age, particularly where children are involved is paramount when making films. Josh's narration states Eastwick was born around 1878, yet it appears his actual age is unknown due to him being raised on the streets.


This story follows Richard Eastwick through 3 generations of trying to better himself, and his family. Children, and wives depart many times before his life comes to an end, he seems to blame god for all his misfortune, and god does win in the end.

We see drama through drought, famine, 2 wars, there is rivalry unsurpassed, and he has a poem, I only wish I could remember it to put on here that sums his whole life.

I really do want to buy this film, so please if you have it contact me.


This is one of those fun fluff movies that contains serious subject matter, but it plays out more blasé. A Florida couple (Joanna Cassidy and Greg Evigan) are reunited with their daughter (Tania Saulnier) who has been missing for 16 years. But not everything is what it seems in this one.

Victor Browne and Tania Saulnier give more memorable performances than the two leads Cassidy and Evigan. Browne in particular added some good comedic moments. But all of the actors did a great job and the film is entertaining. The locations are very beautiful and the director, Rex Piano (who also directed another good movie, Blind Injustice), did a nice job, especially in capturing some great visuals. This movie is one that is fun to watch kicked back late at night while eating nachos and drinking a beer.


Only the physical attractiveness of the players might cause a viewer to pause when scanning the channels with the remote control. But a charming girl with a pretty face alone does not create drama.

Only shallow showbiz actors and directors would think it plausible to present the reunion of a long lost child with her mother and father as a casual and mundane event. Outpouring at the end of long suffering, raw emotion, deep feelings -- all completely missing from FOUND. The big reunion in FOUND is little more than an owner finding misplaced car keys after a five minute search.

Only made-for-TV folk think it does not matter when the actors are clearly seen wearing underwear during "nude" love-making scenes. The technical production values are weak, even by low-end cable channel standards.

FOUND is painful to watch, not because of story-telling power and emotion, but because the plot has problems and almost each and every scene lacks credibility.

FOUND is missing drama. Please don't try to find FOUND.


I enjoyed the movie: Found, for the most part. A good drama. Very good cast members. However, there were some parts that weren't accounted for. Like, who checked out roger from the hotel room, and who returned his car back into the rental company? Also, where was roger's body when the police and paramedics came? I really think that Joanna Cassidy knew the first time she saw "katherine", she knew even from 16 years ago that she was not her original adopted daughter. But she was so glad just to have a daughter. Remember, when her husband showed her the pictures and she found out that the girl was in a scam with the investigator, she didn't disown the girl as her daughter. Anyway, I give the movie what I think it deserves, a 7.


This is like a expanded soap opera but worse. Such poor acting but even worse is the plot. Parents finding their daughter after 15 years from her being kidnapped - I've acted more excited over finding $20.00 in a jacket pocket. Tania Saulnier is a babe no doubt but that can't save this waste of celluloid. There are just so many holes in this epic - when trying to determine if someone is really your daughter and hundreds of thousands of dollars are at stake - no DNA testing ??? Come on. While one could spend more time finding the flaws in this creation...... my suggestion would be to "Find" something better to watch.


Only the physical attractiveness of the players might cause a viewer to pause when scanning the channels with the remote control. But a charming girl with a pretty face alone does not create drama.

Only shallow showbiz actors and directors would think it plausible to present the reunion of a long lost child with her mother and father as a casual and mundane event. Outpouring at the end of long suffering, raw emotion, deep feelings -- all completely missing from FOUND. The big reunion in FOUND is little more than an owner finding misplaced car keys after a five minute search.

Only made-for-TV folk think it does not matter when the actors are clearly seen wearing underwear during "nude" love-making scenes. The technical production values are weak, even by low-end cable channel standards.

FOUND is painful to watch, not because of story-telling power and emotion, but because the plot has problems and almost each and every scene lacks credibility.

FOUND is missing drama. Reader, please don't bother to find FOUND.


I payed my money and saw this movie expecting a laugh and to leave with a smile on my face. I wasn't expecting Oscar acting, a great storyline or something that would leave a lasting impression on me.

The performances were good, I especially enjoyed Michael Douglas's glam OTT character. The main actors also impressed and I was drawn into their romance as the film went on. So much so that I shed a little tear at the end.

When I left the cinema I was smiling and during the movie I laughed out loud along

with many other people. I got what I paid for and had a good night.


The film started out a little slowly but began to move well. I thought that there was really good chemistry between the two main characters. I liked the film for its well conveyed message about commitment and what it means to care for people. In order to receive you need to give and vice versa. The film used Dickens as a clever vehicle for its plot and it worked for me anyway. I am not saying the film is a classic but it was a pleasant way to spend a couple of hours and I definitely would recommend it to people I know. I thought that the acting was terrific and the characters were well developed. I think the film is definitely worth seeing.


Seriously what did you really expect from this movie its a romantic comedy! I'm so angry because everyone destroys this movie for no reason. I'm no big fan of McConaughey but in this movie i really felt he was himself the big lady charmer. Garner was absolutely fantastic she was awesome and beautiful. Now what i think about the movie. This was an enjoyable funny movie, not an academy award film but certainly a movie to watch. You don't need to be a big fan of Mattew McConaughey to see this movie, but it would helps. Little to no surprises in the plot, but then who ever sees romantic comedy for the plot? I had some good laugh. These two have great chemistry and are just amazing to watch. As the story unfolds you will laugh and cry at the brilliance of such an amazing storyline. A must see!!


Lothario photographer goes to attend his brothers wedding. In the course of the evening he manages to ruin the up coming nuptials. That night as he tries to sleep he's visited by various ghosts who effectively show him, ala Scrooge, the error of his ways and the true love of his life. Unoriginal romantic comedy stars Matthew McConaughey who gives it his best shot but its not quite enough. The problem is that once you know the premise you can pretty much write the rest yourself. Okay you may not have come up with Michael Douglas as one of the ghosts Uncle Wayne (based on Robert Evans?), but you could probably come up with the rest. Its not bad but I couldn't believe that anyone would pay to see it. (Admittedly I wandered in from one theater to another when the movie I paid for proved to be a bust, so I can say I split the cost, but even then I feel a little cheated.) I will say in the films defense that the speech about why the wedding should go on is a great piece of writing. Its a wonderful romantic piece on why we should not run away from love, its probably the best thing in it, and one wishes that more of the film had been up to that level (a couple of other bits are almost that good but they are fleeting). The film has left me wondering about Jennifer Garner. Her role is unremarkable and she has no real presence. Yes she is adequate but there is no star quality. Is it the role? Is it her? I don't know. I'm left to ponder why she's a star. As for the movie, if you like this sort of thing give it a shot, though I'd wait for cable.


I came into the cinema already having seen the trailer not expecting much from the movie. The first 45 minutes were OK starting with a few funny lines and getting a taster of what was to come of the main character. However the movie became a bit of a shambles as soon as the first ghost came along and the movie never really engaged me from then on.

I know that from the title i wasn't going to get a lot of realism but what i found hard to believe was the way Connor mead (main character) was able to have a life changing moment in one night ,from everything guys would want (most men would agree) to having everything a woman would want from a man, without the woman having to do anything which of course doesn't teach us anything.

the ending was very weak for an already weak storyline with a seemingly impossible wedding being put back on again after Connor has a 2 minute pep talk to the bride ,in which she realises she is wrong for not wanting to marry the man who slept with her best friend still sitting in the same car on the way to the airport. to cap it all off we return to the ghosts chatting each other up and everyone lives happily ever after.

If the producers actually had an idea of when to release the film they should have done it around Christmas because of the closeness to "A Christmas Carol" and people don't mind a corny film or a corny song because it's Christmas...instead it seems like everyone got it wrong with this one


Someone thought why don't we take Charles Dickens A Christmas Carol and take tiny bits of last years Maid of Honor, and you get Ghosts of Girlfriends Past. A good idea that quickly goes nowhere, It's not all funny, but mildly amusing at times.

Connor Mead(Matthew McConaughey) a famous photographer that has pretty much slept with a lot of women, some are clients. Is invited to be best man at his brother Pauls(Breckin Meyer) wedding. During that time he meets up with an old child hood friend and former lover Jenna(Jennifer Garner), and pretty much begins hitting on most of the brides maid. But is quickly visited by the ghost of his rich uncle(Michael Douglas), and tells him that he will be visited by three ghosts, in hopes that they will make him see the error of his ways.

Although the idea was good, but it went nowhere, cause it had very little laughs. Matthew McConaughey doesn't show much here in this role, he is so unlikable and makes it impossible to care about him. Jennifer Garner really surprised me here, she gave a real strong performance, and her performance was not week like it was in Catch and Release(2006). And she and McConaughey have very little chemistry. Now Emma Stone is pretty much a scene stealer as the ghost of girlfriends past, she got some laughs. But Michael Douglas's character began to wear out his presence.

A little note: Christa B. Allen who plays teenage Jenna, also starred in 13 going on 30(2004), in which she also played a teenage version of Jennifer Garner character.


I went to see this movie because I am a fan of Matthew McConaughey. And though I want to see him in a more serious role than those he has been playing lately, this film was actually good.

Jennifer Garner was a good match for Matthew. They had good chemistry together. And it was a nice change from all of the usual movies to see some actors you haven't seen in a while, like Michael Douglas. He was a perfect choice for that role.

The concept of this movie is very funny and it is a refreshing change from the usual, lame, romantic stories. It was fun to see the flashbacks, not to mention the way they traveled through each one. This is an adult movie I would have to say. There are a lot of sexual jokes and situations. But this is what makes the movie funny and amusing.

By the end of this movie you'll know you made a good choice to go see it. Even though it's an average romantic comedy, it stands better than a lot of others because it uses a different concept. This is what happens when you have good actors in a movie together. They make a simple idea look perfect. Go see this one!


A mix of modern-day Charles Dickens classic A Christmas CAROL along with man-whoring, GHOSTS OF GIRLFRIENDS PAST is a no-brainer with a pretty powerful cast that really does nothing with a script that rehashes this very old theme: regret and redemption.

The cast drew me in to see this (that and the fact that I was stuck on a flight with nothing else to do but watch an inflight film!) Matthew McConaughey (TROPIC THUNDER) is the lead as Connor Mead, a guy who's sexual exploits might make a Congressman blush. He's never married but always had a childhood crush on Jenny Perotti (Jennifer Garner, JUNO). The two never got together because of Connor's youthful shyness and Jenny's need to fit in. But now that Connor is returning home for his brother's wedding, things are getting a bit weird. Connor begins seeing his late, great Uncle Wayne (Michael Douglas, KING OF California) in strange visions. His deceased Uncle tells him, in true Dickensonian fashion, that he'll be greeted by three ghosts this night. And they're going to show him the error of his relationship-phobic ways.

If you've read or watched any of the Christmas Carol renditions, you'll know exactly how this turns out. Like I said, no-brainer.

The sad thing about this film is that they try to make it light and fun, but fail miserably in almost all its attempts (some of you may be familiar with the falling wedding cake scene that has been used as a trailer ...and even that isn't really funny). The only thing that was consistently humorous was the bride, Emma Stone, as a neurotic who tries to keep herself together amidst the chaos of her wedding.

This one's a definite pass, even for those wishing to pass a bit of wasted time.


It completely misses its mark and audience. This is supposed to be a chick flick; therefore it should have characters that are empowering to women. Instead this is filled with the weakest women this side of a sheiks harem. It is insulting to women and completely demeans them.

Spoiler alert

I was most surprised by Jennifer Garner's character. For 7 seasons she played the strong kick ass Sydney Bristow, I would have thought she could spot a weak character. Also Jennifer's character is hardly a starring role, but more of a prop ready to serve the wants of Matthew McConaughey's character.

We are lead to believe that Jennifer and Matthew were childhood sweethearts (that never kissed) who lost touch at 14 then reconnected at 24 when he not only breaks her heart but actually destroys her.

He courts her, she falls for him, then after sex he bails and never speaks to her again. Years later he is the best man and she is the maid of honor at his brothers wedding. When she gets her first glimpse of him (after years of silence), she is all glassy eyed and love struck. The rest of the movie she pines for him. There is no big moment where she unleashes on him. There is no big moment where she realizes he is the one for her. She apparently has been waiting in the wings for him to realize she is the one.

The character played by Lacey Chabert is a bridezilla who is unable to control herself and her emotions. Thankfully the three men in her life are there to knock sense back in her.

The three bridesmaids are dimwits pining to sleep with Matthew and when that fails they scrape the bottom of the barrel groomsmen because they just need a man.

The only strong female character is the mother of the bride played by Anne Archer. She goes toe to toe with Mathew and puts him in his place.

But what is his place? Why is it assumed that a guy who lives life as a player lives an empty life? Matthew was blissfully enjoying his life until the ghosts started pointing out his flaws. And we all have flaws. Not like this guy was date raping girls.

You could claim he mistreated women but he never hid that and the women in the movie like it, so he's got their approval. He breaks up with 3 girls on a conference call in front of a fourth girl and after such a despicable act, the fourth girl still wants to sleep with him.

In another scene he orders a bridesmaid to his room to prepare for sex, she happily obliges. Why does that make him flawed?

Before the ghosts show up he is living a pretty happy life. He gets paid well, loves his job and he loves women. Later we learn that he lived to a ripe old age, so his antics never killed him.

Speaking of his funeral, the scene is laughable. Only one person shows? Please! He was great at his job, a top fashion photographer, and was a hero to all the Players. His funeral would be filled with people.

They try to portray him as a mean ass, because he supposedly gets drunk and shares his real feelings about marriage. The scene is out of his character. Prior to this he says with affection that he wouldn't miss his little brothers wedding, now he's saying mean things about the wedding to everyone? Remember this guy is a high paid professional photographer, he is not a stumbling drunk who just left his blue collar job on the loading docks.

Then they try to make it seem like he ruined the wedding by telling one bridesmaid that another bridesmaid once slept with the groom. After the three bridesmaids discuss it, we're dropped into a scene with a hysterical bride who just found out. Matthew was nowhere near that scene and couldn't have told her, therefore one of the bridesmaids must have told her. So it was the bridesmaids that ruined the wedding NOT Matthew.

Finally there is the photograph that he has apparently been caring in his wallet his whole life (yet it isn't folded). Earlier the plot point of the photo is forced down our throat, in a way that negates the final reveal. With the ghost of the past, he sees himself as a child take the photo, he (as an adult) knows it's in his pocket, so he'd be embarrassed about it and wouldn't call attention to the child saying "forever." Yet he does. Why? Oh yeah, to force the point down our throats.

Oh and when he's taking pictures at the wedding. The Nikon flash never pops up. Such a believable photographer!


OK, I have never given a movie a 2, but I will now. I have seen some bad movies, but have rated them higher than this. Fact is that the other movies didn't hide what they were, and you knew what you were going to see. This movie however, from the previews, made you think you were going to see a chick flick,.... a romantic comedy. Not until you are in there watching, do you have a clue that you are actually going to see a dark comedy. A dark romantic comedy..... The bad thing is, this movie didn't really do any aspect of "dark", "romantic", or "comedy" very good at all. I will admit, the idea or a romantic spoof of "A Christmas Carol" is a good idea. And it probably would have worked as a plain old romantic comedy. However what we get here is a ton of crude humor, that actually isn't funny.... just crude. We also get characters that we don't care about. And due to the way this movie was made,... we never care about. There is also no real romance here either. Granted towards the end, they try to put the romance and the sweetness back into the film. But the truth be told,... by this point we don't care. And no matter what our main character has learned by this point, we still don't like him.

I don't want to go on about this movie. If you feel that you want to see this anyways. Do yourself a favor and rent it when it comes out, at Redbox for $1.


I went to see this yesterday and I wish I'd saved my £7 and a precious 2 hours of my already valuable time...I'm just glad that I didn't buy any refreshments while I was there too!! I went to see this movie, based on the trailer and the fact that I like Jennifer Garner and I'm a girl who's a stickler for girlie/romantic films.

I usually like these kind of movies, even when the majority of people don't...from movies like Sydney White, Princess Diaries, How to Lose a Guy in 10 Days and 13 going on 30 to Mean Girls. Other than Mean Girls, the rest aren't hugely clever, witty or original, but nevertheless, they are movies that I enjoy to watch when I feel like a no-brainer movie-watching session.

So, when I saw the trailer for this, I thought, "wow, maybe a slightly original twist for a change...might be worth a couple of hours of my time." So, I went and while only 20 mins into it, my friends turned to me and said, "This isn't very good is it?" to which I responded, "no, it's a bunch of crap." Usually by this point, we have walked out on movies, but silly me decided to continue anyway.

The main worse parts for me, though the whole movie can just be summed up as a whole "worse part", were the crassness and crudity of it which I found completely unbelievable. Do women really continually swoon over a guy who generally treats women like they are nothing? If so, I think those women should take a look at themselves as I'm pretty sure they have issues. Every 5 minutes my eyes, ears and mind were polluted with derogatory comments, sexual innuendos, scenes of a sexual nature. One scene that I shook my head in utter disbelief was when the lead character just groped an older lady's breast at a bar, and yet she made no effort to slap him or talk him down...would women seriously let a guy do this?

The only good parts or vaguely amusing were...and I'm really scraping the barrel here, were the times when Lacy Charbert freaked out in the way she does best a la Mean Girls. They were the only times I felt myself laugh a little.

This movie in the UK was a 12a and as I work with kids younger than this regularly, I would not want them to see this movie...not only because it is really bad but it is littered with smut and vulgarity. In the cinema, there were a number of kids under 12 either who got in but clearly put make-up on to make them look 12 or they were with an adult. If I was watching this with a child by my side, I would be very uncomfortable and escort us both out! I had no feeling for the characters whatsoever. Jennifer Garners character didn't even come across as disliking the main character at all. He supposedly broke her heart, yet she continues to like him and even treat him with some sort of respect, despite the fact he never treats anyone with any respect - not even his own brother at times.

I implore you to rent a movie or two instead of seeing this, or see something else at the movies - anything else.


Connor Mead(Matthew McConaughey)is a well known photographer with the reputation of being a 'love em and leave em' kind of guy. Stinking rich with an ego to match; he actually broke up with three girlfriends at once on a conference call. He reluctantly goes home to attend his brother's(Breckin Meyer)wedding and ruins the rehearsal and dinner by professing the faults with marriage. Connor shockingly is visited by his dead Uncle Wayne(Michael Douglas), who forewarns him of being haunted by ghosts of his past girlfriends.

Romantic...not exactly. Funny...has its moments. Worth watching...only if you are a McConaughey fan; his arrogance and over capacity of self-loving is really a turnoff. Those that love him will more than likely be beguiled. Douglas is pretty funny. Connor's childhood girlfriend played by Jennifer Garner is beautiful and brings the only sanity to the film. Others in the cast: Robert Forster, Anne Archer, Lacey Chabert and Emma Stone.


A boy (selfish with every girl on his feet) ruins his brother's wedding, while 3 ghosts try to turn him back in the good guy he used to be...the boy manages to solve things up and to take back the love of his life.End.

I watched this movie thinking it would be a funny comedy...and a romantic one, of course. Well, it wasn't. Is has a few enjoyable moments but the rest of the movie is full of Hollywood clichés. It really could have been so much better, the plot was intriguing (or at least that's what I thought after watching the trailer), the idea of the ghosts of these girls finally giving a lesson to this full of himself guy seems to completely vanish after the first one. Disappointing. I love the cast, but each one of them taken apart. Could really be brothers Matthew Mcconaughey and Breckin Meyer?? And why do a girl like Jenny (Jennifer Gardner) would love an idiot like Connor Mead (Mcconaghey)???? I think the goal for a movie is to make people believe for 2 hours that what they're watching could be true, this movie fails this goal. Too bad. Could have been better. I wouldn't recommend "paying" for watching this.


"A man is only as faithful as his options." --Anonymous (or maybe Gene Simmons).

Men, when you're dragged by your fem-boss like the vagina-whipped pussy you've become, to see GHOSTS OF GIRLFRIENDS PAST, at least take solace in the film's educative axioms during its first act.

"The power of a relationship lies with whoever cares less." "It's your feelings for her that are killing your game." "...marriage is an archaic and oppressive institution that should have been abolished years ago..." Of course, these truisms are regarded as misogynistic pap within the context of this pea-brained excuse for a romantic comedy (that men will say they enjoy in order to part a woman's thighs); societal truths that women refuse to believe men believe.

Even if one were to regard romantic "love" as true, this movie itself - and all its characters - hypocritically denounce everything they claim to believe in at every turn with their unthinking, irrational, contradictory actions.

Professional Philanderer Connor Mead (Matthew McConaughey) and Jenny Perotti (Jennifer Garner) are the couple just waiting to be paired. Director Mark Waters and writers Jon Lucas and Scott Moore make no bones about ripping off Dickens's A Christmas Carol as the movie's plot: a spectral playboy uncle (Michael Douglas) appears to arrogant bachelor Connor to warn him of three ghosts who will visit him to show him the "error" of his skirt-chasing ways.

These apparitions appear to Connor at his brother's wedding rehearsal weekend, where Connor is busy getting drunk and going Larry David by telling it like it is: "...love is magical comfort food for the weak and uneducated; makes you feel all warm and relevant but in the end, love leaves you weak, dependent - and fat." Playing Connor's brother Paul with no conviction is Breckin Meyer (so beige his name shouldn't have capital letters), who is marrying a wildly retarded woman (Lacey Chabert) who looks like Jennifer Love-Hewitt without the talent, in other words, exactly like Jennifer Love-Hewitt.

Michael Douglas's ghost is hilarious when he's telling truths about staying powerful in relationships, but it's all for naught, as he is stuck in a Chick Flick that will ultimately emasculate him and make him confess that philandering will leave you lonely. Never once considering that marrying a shrike whom you will eventually lose interest in will also leave you lonely.

Connor tells his brother: "You're going to be miserable without her" - again, never once considering that he could very well be miserable WITH her.

If you think I'm belaboring this point, it is nothing compared to how the film pounds home its dangerously skewed idiot girlie message about absolute states, again and again. And again. And again. And again.

Never once considering the reality that you CAN be joyful within a marriage. AND joyful without.

Connor, who is a famous avant-garde photographer of women, is shown his girlyman dates with Jenny; his search for true love supposedly at an end and him not taking the opportunity to "settle down." But if he had settled down at that point, his success would have faltered, for it was the fire in his bachelorhood that gained him the financial and critical success.

None of this is taken into account because - Women Be Dreamkillers. It makes no difference how HIS career path might have derailed - as long as SHE be happy.

He tells her she's gorgeous - but she's Jennifer Garner. Should those lips really go with those cheekbones - or was there a mistake at the clinic? Jenny insists Connor "woo her," which he does, playing foosball and eating ice cream together and generally becoming female in order to pretend he doesn't want to bed her - until Jenny, like all women, deludes herself that he "isn't like other guys" and invites him to bed with a clear deluded conscience.

Then - after all her yammering about "taking it slow," she forces him to spend the night. Let me get this straight: HE has no say in the matter.

The future fem-ghost, all sinister in flowing white robes and mute, shows Connor Jenny's wedding - to someone else.

During this "future wedding" scene, Jenny looks back at the church door regretfully, as if Connor might appear to halt the proceedings. So... women get married because someone - anyone - ASKS them to, not because they really love the person. Never once is it considered what a shallow, time-serving person Jenny is for allowing a man to think she is "in love" with him, yet hoping - longing - to be rescued from his embrace by someone whom she believes she loves more.

So after hammering home the idiocy that marriage will keep you from misery, the movie shows us explicitly how a marriage can BE misery (for HER as she pines for her "True Love"; for HIM as he never gets through to her completely), yet it never recants from its demonstrably incorrect platitude. Demonstrated incorrect by ITSELF! GHOSTS OF GIRLFRIENDS PAST is another in a long line of tiresome films where females prove conclusively they don't know WHAT they want. If a man has Game, he must be denigrated as an amoral, emotionless philanderer; if he doesn't have game, he is a dweeb, like Breckin Meyer or his coterie of groomsmen even more pathetic than himself.

And the grandest irony is that, like all powerful men, Matthew McConaughey actually leads the profligate lifestyle portrayed in GHOSTS OF GIRLFRIENDS PAST. At certain times he may choose to settle for awhile on one favorite, at times he may be married - but - there isn't a woman in the audience who wouldn't gladly destroy any McConaughey relationship for a lick of that v-shaped man-chest and a night of that southern drawl.

Michael Douglas was right all along...

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


Connor Mead (Matthew McConaughey) used to be a once sensitive, quiet guy and then has become a big jerk who is a big shot photographer now. He treats girls like a dish and once he has his way with a girl he finds attractive, he is on his way with no strings attached. His brother Paul (Breckin Meyer) wedding is this weekend and it so happens that an old fling from his childhood Jenny Perotti (Jennifer Garner) is there. As uncomfortable as that might be he is taken back in the past to show where he went wrong and what needs to happen to change his life around.

Uncle Wayne (Michael Douglas) I think looks a lot like McConaughey and is fun to see them together in a movie. Some people I have talked to said McConaughey has lost his touch in this movie, but I think just the opposite and is still a great actor. He is getting older and I think still has some good movies to do in him. When movies flash back to the past it is kind of fun because it tells something about a character that you might not know or shows what got them to the point they are at now. My favorite thing about this movie was it shows you to change you life around when something is not going right or that life isn't what you expected. Also check out Garner in her latest movie, "The Invention of Lying" when that comes out on video soon.


Connor Mead (Matthew McConaughey) is a fashion photographer known for his revealing photos AND his love-em-and-leave-em practices. Short on time, one day, Connor finds it expedient to break up with three women on a conference call. Needless to say, they are disgusted, but Connor still has a knack for attracting adoring females. His personal assistant has to remind him that he is due at a rehearsal dinner for his brother's wedding and may have to cut short a liaison or two. Arriving at the family home in Connecticut, Connor upsets the wedding party with lightning speed as he propositions an older woman (Anne Archer), who turns out to be the bride's mother, and has an unfortunate accident in the kitchen. But, worst of all, Mr. Mead runs smack into an old flame, Jenny (Jennifer Garner), the designated maid of honor. Friends since childhood, Connor once wooed Jenny but the relationship turned sour, due to Connor's aversion to commitment. Now, as Connor settles into one of the mansion's rooms, he is visited by the ghost of his now-deceased, lothario-like Uncle Wayne (Michael Douglas), as well as the ghost of the teenage girl who was his first "conquest", and an angel-like spirit from the future, a la Christmas Carol. Can they show Connor Mead the important things in life and love? This film is a pleasant pasttime for fans of light, romantic comedy but, it is by no means great, merely good. The two principal players are quite nice, with Garner doing a fine job as the jilted girlfriend of long ago and McConaughey very competent in a role so familiar that he could do it well in his sleep. (Do look for a different type of role soon, Mr. McC, that's this viewer's advice). The supporting cast is even better, with Breckin Meyer, Lacey Chabert, Archer, and especially Robert Forster and Douglas, adding nice animation to a relatively routine script. The sets, costumes, and other production values are very fine. As for the direction, it is acceptable but definitely plays it safe, resulting in a flick that seems far too middle of the road. If you are a fan of romantic comedy, yes, you will be in your element when you sit down for a showing and most others will find the film bearable. But, even so, lower your expectations just a tad, for then you will not be disappointed when you realize it is not in the same company as such classics as Notting Hill or Return to Me.


Waliking into the cinema i could tell that this would film would be a drag and yet i still watched the whole movie. To put it simply this film stretched the plot of a Christmas carol too far, and left a lot to be desired in even making it remotely funny. having watched Jenifer Garner in P.S I Love you i expected a lot from her in this film, but instead of being a leading role as she was a vital part of the plot she felt a lot like an addition to the thin story line, most of the time she looked like she was tripping over her tongue when Connor Mead was mentioned. The only saving grace that could have been was humour which it lacked in abundance and the Hysterical wife to be was extremely annoying to the point where you wanted one of the cast to slap her out of it. The whole thing was distasteful to say the least that any man can treat numerous women in that way and still get away with it, for instance grabbing the future mother in law's breast with not even a raise of the eyebrow from her in the least, any man doing this in the real world would have received quite a hefty slap. To put it bluntly it was a let down from start to finish and a truly awful film.


I wasted twelve bucks on this film that I had hoped to be an entertaining, funny but witty film with the talented Jennifer Garner.

Instead, Matthew gave a less than acceptable performance with 'old' jokes and empty humor. Although some laughs were shed, at some points I was caught between watching 'Disaster Movie 8/Scary Movie 2' or 'Rachel Getting Married'.

I'm sure if this movie would had been made several years ago, it would had been a riot! But being the year 2009, movies like this are overrated and the jokes are SO eight years ago.

Take my advice and don't waste your hard earned money on this film. You aren't missing anything. Same old, same old plot. Nothing new. Nothing surprising.

EmmaLynn


My wife and I just came back from viewing the "Ghosts of Girlfriends Past." We went because she is both a big fan of Jennifer Garner from her Alias days, and she finds Matthew McConaughey charming. I went because I enjoy relationship stories.

The obvious Dickens formula was no hindrance to our anticipation of what we thought would be a funny and heartwarming story. So our disappointment in the movie was not due to the formula. In fact, I thought this handling of the Dickens outline was better than the "American Christmas Carol" which lampooned Michael Moore.

We found the movie distasteful on two counts. First, it was vulgar, second it lacked substance. We know the main character of Connor Mead had to be portrayed as a callous womanizer in order for him to repent at the end. What grieved my wife was the sleazy character, Uncle Wayne (played by Michael Douglas), who plays the Jacob Marley ghost in this story. What grieved us both was the portrayal of the brides maids as having male sex drives. Not surprising since the story was written by men.

The lack of substance was in two parts as well. First I found the love that Connor had for Jenny Perotti to be unbelievable and unable to convince us that Connor would actually repent in the end. Second, there was nothing learned about human behavior from the movie to make it truly redemptive. I found Mel Gibson to be much more believable in the movie, "What Women Want" with Helen Hunt. Both actors had more intelligent and substantial roles to play. But I think this is the key difference. "What Women Want" is a film by Nancy Meyers, a woman, whereas "Ghosts of Girlfriends Past" is a film directed by Mark Waters and written by Jon Lucas and Scott Moore .... men.

If you want to see a good movie of a womanizer who repents, rent the DVD of "What Women Want" and see that again if you saw it already.


I'm not a fan of rom-coms but the idea of a Lothario who meets his match in a Dickensian scenario sounded intriguing. Sadly, that was a mistake.

It took all of ten minutes to reach the point where viewing further would seem like a waste of one's life. The Connor Mead character is unbelievably trite and unlovable and the fact that pretty girls want to swoon all over him is an insult to women everywhere.

Far from being amusing or in the slightest way realistic, we have a film based on a totally self-centred character buoyed-up by brain dead bimbos. I appreciate that Americans have a different take on romance, relationships and humour to us Brits but, really, no-one can honestly say this isn't a car crash of a film.

It makes the 1960s and 1970s British 'Carry On' films, full of seaside postcard humour and wonderfully non-PC views on everything, seem like models of sophistication.

Avoid!


After being the root cause of his kid brother's wedding being called off, Connor Mead (Matthew McConaughey), a noted womanizer who sees male-female relationships as a strategic game to be enjoyed without becoming ensnared, is visited by the "ghost" of the first girl he ever had sex with. She tells him he will be visited by ghosts of his past, future and present girl friends. These are not ghosts of dead people but possess the shape and memories of the living women.

I found the film to be more enjoyable than I expected it would be. I generally don't care much for Matthew McConaughey films. But he surprised me in this one.

Although generally considered a romantic comedy, it is not a film aiming for laughs. It is a comedy in the sense of not a tragedy, in that it has a happy ending. Instead of funny, the story aims at giving the audience an emotional response.


About two months ago my friends and I rented this movie and we only watched the first 5 minutes of it because we got bored so we took it out and watched another movie. Once they left I decided to watch it by myself since I spent 5 dollars on renting it. I wish my friends and I watched the whole thing because it's one of the best movies ever made and I was smiling through the whole movie. I'm not really a big fan of Matthew but I thought he did an awesome job on here. I really think this movie should of won an Oscar because it was just amazing..

10/10 [:

GO SEE IT NOW.


We've all seen this type of movie a million times and yet we keep paying to see it again and again. Guy gets his heart broken at a young age, becomes a player, has one night stands until one day he somehow manages to woo the 'one that got away' and they live happily ever after. If I have to sit through one more of these terrible uninspired chick flicks, I just might throw my TV out the window.

Matthew McConaughey was his usual laid back, douche bag self and Jennifer Garner could have been played by any number of horse-faced actresses just as well (Sarah Jessica Parker, perhaps?). The only one worth mentioning was Michael Douglas as the sleaze-bag uncle. He brought the only two laughs that I emitted during the whole film. If it weren't for his character, I would have given the movie 0/10 instead of 2/10.

I would only recommend this movie to females that are afraid to think for the duration of 90 minutes at a time.


"The Spiderwick Chronicles" director Mark Waters helmed this highly amusing, "Scrooge" type spin on romance. Scenarists Jon Lucas and Scott Moore of "The Hangover" furnish some frankly hilarious dialogue.

Arrogant playboy bachelor photographer, Connor Mead (Matthew McConaughey of "Failure to Launch"), dumps three women during a conference call when he feels that they are complicating his lifestyle. Our protagonist thinks love is a myth. He opposes marriage on any grounds later to his childhood sweetheart Jenny Perotti (Jennifer Garner of "Juno") when they collide with each other again at the wedding rehearsal dinner for his kid brother Paul (Breckin Meyer of "Road Trip") and future wife Sandra (Lacey Chabert of "Black Christmas") in Newport.

As far as Connor sees it, "marriage is an archaic and oppressive institution that should have been abolished years ago." As for love, Connor reviles it as "magical comfort food for the weak and the uneducated. Furthermore, he insists "love leaves you weak, dependent, and fat." A bespectacled Michael Douglas enters the action about 18 minutes later steals the show as Connor's recently deceased Uncle Wayne. Connor is standing in the men's room when Uncle Wayne materializes at a urinal and relieves himself. When Connor tries to touch him to prove that Uncle Wayne is only a figment of his imagination, Uncle Wayne shrinks away from him: "Don't touch a man when he is hanging a wire." The worldly, wise, but very dead Uncle Wayne has returned to help Connor mend his ways. "Tonight," he informs Connor, "things are gonna change." Uncle Wayne explains: "Tonight you're going to be visited by three ghosts." Wayne assures Connor, "and you're going to be forced to feel things that you haven't felt for a long time." Later, when Connor goes to his bedroom for a rendezvous, he finds red-headed Allison Vandermeersh (Emma Stone of "Superbad") waiting for him. Allison was Connor's first sexual score. She tells Connor she plans to take him back through allhis past girlfriends and help him figure out how he got his head stuck so far up his hindquarters. We learn that Jenny gave Connor his first camera, and Connor's pursuit and initial loss of Jenny prompted him to seek advice from Uncle Wayne. Years later Connor hooks up with Jenny and makes the mistake of not snuggling with her after sex. He sneaks off into the night and she doesn't speak to him again until ten years afterward when they meet at Paul's wedding. Not sooner has Allison--the ghosts of girlfriends past--left him than his girl Friday Melanie (Noureen De Wulf of "The Goods: Live Hard, Sell Hard") appear as the ghost of girlfriends present. The real problem with "The Ghosts of Girlfriends Past" is that McConaughey and Jennifer Garner lack charismatic chemistry as a couple. This is basically a conservative, Republican style stab at marriage that spouts anti-gay ideology. The wedding cake scene is funny and McConaughey is well cast as a callous stud with lots of eye-candy babes parading around him. Lacey Chabert is good as the bride who is marrying McConaughey's brother. The action transpires during a snowy weekend for our hero's brother's wedding. As Marine Sergeant Volkom, Robert Forster of "Jackie Brown" plays the bride's father who marries his daughter, and Anne Archer still looks mighty fetching as his divorced wife Vonda Volkom.


"Ghosts of Girlfriends Past" was a total failure. In particular, Matthew McConaughey proves he is a mediocre actor at best.

The cinematography was the only acceptable part of this film.

It is hard to believe that one of the writers of this film, Jon Lucas, went on to write "The Hangover". How is that possible? This film is so bad Charles Dickens would roll over in his grave if could see his classic tale of redemption bastardized in this fashion. This film was neither romantic or comedic.

Further, the director made the wrong choices at almost every step in the making of this film. I cannot believe it was directed by Mark Waters, who has directed movies I loved, including "Mean Girls" (with Tina Fey), "Just Like Heaven" (with Reese Witherspoon) and "Freaky Friday" (with Jamie Lee Curtis). How did he go this far off?

Someone at some point should have pulled the plug on this film. When the dailies came out, why didn't the Executive in Charge of Production or someone from the studio say none of this was funny. At a screenplay level, what did someone see when they green-lit the script?

The main character, Connor Mead played by Matthew McConaughey, is such a callous, self- centered, womanizing jerk that there is no hero or anti-hero for which to cheer. His younger brother, Paul played by Breckin Meyer, was not developed as a character. Paul's bride-to-be is written so emotionally and psychologically defective that the audience needs to ask: "why is Paul marrying her?"

To the great actors Michael Douglas and Robert Forster, I ask: "What were you thinking when you agreed to appear in this film?" Mr. Douglas and Mr. Forster did the best they could with the material they were given, but everyone associated with this film needs to be embarrassed.

It was a complete an utter waste of time to watch this film. I hated almost every frame of this film. It is one of the worst films of 2009.


I decided to write this review because I felt it's unfair for the movie from the negative comments and ratings it had.

First off, as other commenters said, this is a romantic comedy movie, I think this movie served this concept in a very well manner.

The idea is new, nicely presented, well written and directed.

It comes to many young men, or middle age men to be like the main character in the movie (Conner meed) Matthew McConaughey, to have many womens around, having only FUN with them, be successful and so on. and that is for sure what the new generation dreams of!, However this movie shows the consequences of such a life in a funny, simple and well presented way. It shows how important to have a constant partner with committed and respectful relationship, not only touch and go!

I like the story plot, the scenario and even the visual effects are really good and serves the movie.

Good work for all characters in the movie and the directing was very very good.


I wasn't expecting much from this movie since I think the whole 'Christmas Carol' theme has been beaten to death already, but hoped at least for a few laughs. I think the only thing that made me chuckle at all was the very end of the movie when Michael Douglas' character is hitting on the other 'ghosts'.

I'm not a big fan of Matthew McConaughey, usually I'm just indifferent to him. But I found him and his character extremely annoying in this movie. He was very unlikeable, and I couldn't find myself rooting for him at all. He didn't even look attractive - most of the time looking like he hadn't slept in days, and looked just plain horrible during the flash back to a time he had long hair. It really made me question why so many women wanted to sleep with him.

I like Jennifer Garner, but this was definitely not one of her better movies. I think a lot of it had to do with the writing of the role. When she first sees Conner (Matthew McConaughey)at his brother's wedding rehearsal, she comes across as a nagging wife to him before the audience even knows they have a history. It was just a tad bit overdone. And as many others have mentioned, there was just no believable chemistry between them.

I was sick of the whole story before the first ghost even showed up. The sexual wisecracks sounded like bad pick up lines, and the attempts at special effects were lame at best.

I found myself wanting to scream realizing that two more ghosts still needed to make an appearance if it was to follow the 'Christmas Carol' theme. Luckily it looked like they edited the heck out of it and both were really short sequences.

I would have turned the movie off if I wasn't watching it with someone who did chuckle a few times. She was rather surprised that I disliked it so much since I usually like romantic comedies, but I would rather watch "Made of Honor" than to ever watch this one again.


The premise of the movie was okay (and I did enjoy fast-forwarding to see how they worked the Dickens parallels in) but the main character (Connor Mead, played by Matthew McConaughey) might as well have been on the Lucy Show for how many terrible, awful, irredeemable things he did. It made the entire movie SO annoying.

I also didn't enjoy how vapid most of the female characters were, or the idea that anybody and everybody would fall into bed with such a sleazebucket. He just wasn't attractive, to be honest. Daniel Sunjata's character was 100 times more interesting.

Jennifer Garner, Breckin Meyers and Michael Douglas were all fine, but not enough to salvage an otherwise really unpleasant movie.


I'm 23 minutes in, and have stopped this movie.

Normally if I'm going to rate a film, I will watch the whole thing. However, there are not many movies which force me to turn them off in the first quarter. I will generally give it a chance even if it's terrible.

This movie, however, breaks the mold. I generally love Matthew Mcconaughey. His early work was brilliant. Movies like this one show him to be a shallow actor. He is officially typecast into the romantic comedy genre. Usually his films are cute. This movie is crap.

The acting so far is shallow at best. I am extremely disappointed in both leading "actors". Jennifer Garner has done some incredible roles, and the fact that both of them would even consider putting their names on this show that they probably aren't getting any other offers.

And Micheal Douglas: What are you doing? You have a great resume. So you are getting older and don't have so much coming your way. Would you rather go out with class, or go out with really low quality volume? Bad move dude.

I am very glad that I pirated this movie. Seeing it in the theatre or renting it would have been the same as ripping up my money.


This is just the same Matthew M movie you have seen since the year 2000. New actors and maybe a few new story features. But the same ol' thing once again.

I am all for new movies, but the same story lines have got to go.

It's very predictable, you can set scene for scene by just looking at the box art.

The only thing about this movie that was enjoyable was Michael Douglas. He did a great job and a refreshing twist to these common movies.

The movie wasn't terrible. It was cute and nice to look at. If you haven't seen a Matthew M. movie. It will be a nice start for you.

If you have nothing better to do and you like chick flicks, give it a try.


I like to compare apples to apples,this is a B movie,so... compared to other B movies,this one is great.Michael Pare is almost always a very charismic actor,in this movie he is at the top of form,cool story,cool guy,and over the top acting(thats what makes a great B movie). Even my wife liked it.


I'm suprised about the amount of positivity expressed towards this movie as it is quite poor. As a long standing SF fan I was looking forward to it, despite it's low budget and the fact that the director's subsequent movies have been less than satisfactory.

The good points: The special effects are reasonable (although not great) and the set designs are excellent (quite reminiscent of Alien.)

The bad points: Cliche after cliche hits you until you can't take it seriously. The handsome tough guy cop who smokes a cigarette out of the corner of his mouth. You'll hate this character unless you like one dimensional humourless carboard cut out stereotypes.

The muscle bound convicts who bully everyone else. IS this a prison for body builders or something?

 The geeky computer wiz kids and their quirky humour. How we laughed.

The obvious 'good guy saves the day' ending.

Malcolm Mcdowell. Why does he take movies like this? Such a fine actor is wasted here.

The plot holes are too numerous to mention here but there are lots and lots - probably about 44.

There really isn't anything to like about this film apart from the average visuals.

I advise you to give this one a miss and pick up a very similar but far superiour movie called 'Outland' starring Sean Connery and directed by Peter Hyams.


It's 2038 the planet earth is out of national resources, but there's a whole asteroid belt of deserted, lifeless rocks from which all the world's resources can be drawn. But the planet earth has also split into various corporations instead of nations who are fighting for control of those asteroids. In fact one company is down to only one asteroid, the last stand will be made on Moon 44.

You know if you're expecting a serious study on earth's dwindling resources and what I personally think will eventually happen, the strip mining of dead worlds for resources, Moon 44 ain't the film for you. What we did get in between the giggles and the video game special effects was one of the great homo-erotic science fiction films of all time.

The defense craft are these helicopter type ships that only crazy people like prisoners will fly in exchange for commutation of sentence. They are navigated from the asteroid by these computer geek types. Pilot and navigator of necessity have to work together to fly these things. But the brawny prisoners and they are all brawny believe me have other ideas about bonding with these twinks from space.

Michael Pare is an internal affairs agent for the company going in undercover as a prisoner. Dean Devlin is the head twink, you don't really think he would be teamed with a hardened lifer did you?

Actors trained in the classics like Roscoe Lee Browne and Malcolm McDowell do the lines like they pearls from the Bard and they do it well. Might be some of the best acting these two gentlemen have ever done on screen.

We never see these villains, all we know is that they're not aliens just greedier humans than who Pare is working for. Or who is exactly working for who?

If you care to watch and get a few laughs, tune this monstrosity in.


During the eighties I used to purchase those fantastic Variety and Hollywood Reporter film market editions that were stuffed with movie poster ads advertising the latest film projects in various stages of development from dozens of companies. Unfortunately they stopped producing those great issues by the mid nineties. Anyway, I saw the poster ad for "Moon 44" and the imagery evoked Robert Heinlein. I couldn't wait for this film to come out and it never did. Or the film was in limited release. So finally, I secured a copy of this film on VHS cassette and checked it out. Here is my review.

"Moon 44" is actually a good sci-fi flick. I won't go into the story because you can get that elsewhere on this site. The movie struck me as a cross between "Outland" and "Brubaker". I think what also struck me is how impressive the production design was. I really felt I was watching a mining station on some far off celestial body. The acting was good and especially from Michael Pare and Brian Thompson. It's a good sci-fi film that is definitely worth a look!


Hey, I'm really into Sci-Fi movies. I love any movies that have to do with Science Fiction, and are based in the future with unique settings.

Well I'd like to say that I've seen Moon 44 and consider it a great movie. I'd give this movie overall a 8/10. The reason for this is because of the cinematography. You cannot have a Sci-Fi movie without cinematography.

I consider the cinematography above average in Moon 44 because the director, even though on a short budget was able to create some neat scenery, of futuristic earth, space ships, fighter planes, the base itself and etc. This really caught my eye and made me feel like I was in the movie, like I was Felix Stone (Michael Pare).

Now, I though this may sound crazy, but I have to be able to get into a movie to enjoy it, like I enjoyed Blade Runner because of the cinematography. I felt like I was in the movie, in Neo Angeles 2019 AD and as the main character. Same thing went for Star Wars and so on.......

Even though Moon 44 was done in a foreign country and on a tight budget, I consider Moon 44 to be one of my Sci-Fi favorite flicks. The script could have used improvements, but overall it was a great movie. See it for yourself and tell me what you think. I'm sure you'd enjoy it as well.

-Romeo


Not a bad try,Yes it's a cheap B movie ..but its easy viewing and enjoyable.Some so-called reviews on IMDb take themselves way too seriously and movies at that!, and had knocked down these kinda B movies. If your one of these annoying train-spotting IMDb reviewer. Then please do not watch this movie ,Just go a bury your heads in the sand, and tap together your little red shoes 'there's no place like home'. I'm sure that the wizard of oz ..would be more enjoyable for you anyway. Ratings

dated 90's graphics 7 out of 10 background music 7 out of 10 acting 6 out of 10 story line 5 out of 10 enjoyablity factor 8 out of 10.


This movie is a quotation after quotation of James Cameron's Aliens (1986)... or better said copy, rip off, stealing. Or, how do they call it now... "remake", "homage". Yes, if you like some movie and its (virtual) reality, you'd like to spend more of your time "in it", but you can do it creatively (invent your own sci-fi world, or your own story, or your own extrapolation of the story), but you don't copy everything word by word, scene by scene. Scene of the spaceship approaching planet (repeated more than three times of course), tough soldiers, colony on the planet, Ripley character, Hicks character, Newt-like character, Burke character, elevator scene, what more do we miss...? An alien!

Roland Emmerich is good at copying movies, but I prefer cocktails like Indepenedence Day - where more famous movies and their features are blended into one VFX spectacle. This small movie is not even a B-category. I developed a category of his own, for Mr. Director.

Regarding the "gay interest"... what do you mean? The wannabe-homoerotic electricity between Felix and Jake character? Yes, we all do dream :) Or the rape scene in the showers? Homosexuality = rape? Sexuality = violence? I might call it a hidden not-slightly homophobic remark...


It's never a good sign when the DVD costs just £1 and comes in one of those very thin cases. Neither is it when there's just the bald title printed on the disc and there's no additional material. Still; we live in hope...

Well; what you see is what you get. Don't be fooled by Roland Emerich's name amongst the credits; this is truly a C-movie.

The plot goes something like this. Uninhabited worlds in deep space are being mined for minerals. The stuff is then taken away in shuttle-craft to planetary processing plants. This makes the shuttles extremely valuable and somebody is hijacking them. An undercover cop is sent to find out what's going on, by joining a prison-team at the next world most likely to be targeted. That's 'Moon 44'.

Like so many of these cheap (and not so cheap) movies, money seems to have been saved by not employing a lighting facility. And everything happens in an often barely discernible gloom - even indoors. The twilight never lifts from the beginning to end, making for an extremely dull and claustrophobic experience. Actors are almost all B or C-list and they are doomed to struggle with a script that might be politely described as lacking intelligence. Even the 'big catch' of an ageing Malcolm Macdowell from 'A Clockwork Orange' fame, fails to illuminate either the set or the script.

There's so many silly things going on as regards the plot that it sometimes appears as if children had drafted it. Macdowell's the boss/baddie on the moon, but we never know who he's working for. It's clearly not himself as there's a big battle-cruiser turns up to launch an attack on the moon. Where from? Who's in it? Where does it go? Who cares - clearly not Mr Emmerich. Criminals are sent as defence pilots. They fly helicopters along smoke-filled canyons. Why? why not gain altitude and be a helluva lot safer? Weapons systems are actually more primitive than those available today. Apaches (attack helicopters) employ 8 'Hellfire' guided missiles with a range of up to 5 miles. These defenders didn't engage the enemy within 1000 yards.

On top of all this, there's a testosterone-sodden bi-line about these violent scum-of-the-earth criminals (who are yet still exceptional enough to be qualified helicopter pilots) that makes 'Shawshank' seem like a holiday-camp. This is needlessly emphasised by a shower-scene rape. Ironically, the rapist chooses to rape his land-based navigator, the one man upon whom he will have to depend in the foggy valleys, and it never occurs to him that this geezer might take revenge. Yes.

Bought as a piece of cheap Friday-night throwaway hokum, it was in the charity shop by Saturday afternoon.


Really, really dreadful film combining the worst elements of teen movies, prison movies and low budget sci-fi. Special effects are dreadful, plot predictable and dull, characters moronic stereotypes. Avoid.


Michael Pare stars as a soldier who infiltrates a group of prisoners used as pilots to find out who has been stealing shuttles and soon uncovers that the people in charge there are looking to destroy the base. Michael Pare to me has always been hit or miss so while I quite enjoyed the amusing antics of such stupid (yet fun) movies like Instant Justice and World Gone Wild, I was expecting a level of magical dumbness that would make one gleeful of it's absurdities. Turns out though that Moon 44 is a piece of dreary trash. The movie just moves with no conviction and the story is so hopelessly lethargic we just wait for the conclusion. Among the cast are Michael Pare, Malcom McDowell and Brian Thompson all look bored with the material. I of course identified with them because I myself was also bored with the material.

* out of 4-(Bad)


I'll be honest, I only watched this movie for Stephen Geoffreys, who I believe is one of the most talented and underrated male actors in Hollywood.

His character, "Cookie" the navigator, intrigued me. See, he's a futuristic drug dealer. Now usually, I write drug dealer characters off in movies as low-down scumbags ... and usually they are. But the writers here decided to give Cookie a soul. Cookie reveals about 3/4 of the way through the film the reason why he became a scumbag drug dealer -- not for the money, but for attention. Much like his characters in previous films ("Evil Ed" in Fright Night, "Hoax" in 976-EVIL, and "Wendell" in Fraternity Vacation spring to mind), he's a social outcast who used to get beat up regularly for just being a good guy. Hearing Stephen Geoffreys' sweet voice telling his story to a semi-comatose inmate/pilot (to whom he had secretly given "two double whammys" as revenge for a friend's homosexual rape by another inmate/pilot), you actually feel a little sorry for him -- too bad he didn't give it to the creep who raped his friend!

The movie itself runs a little slow overall, but for Stephen Geoffreys fans, it's a must-see. Just get a Kleenex or two ready for the ending...


In my opinion, the actors have been chosen perfectly. Malcolm McDowell is a wonderful bad guy. Michael Pare plays some kind of twilight character, especially his love for Shakespeare is interesting. Whom I prefer most, is Dean Devlin in his role: an insecure, but funny young man. I like the whole atmosphere of this film - it`s dark, but still hopeful. It`s more than a simple action-sci-fi-film, as I showed above.


I really like Sci-Fi movies, and this one had a promising plot, I thought. A few of the special effects were nice, but the film never managed to catch my full attention. So, if you need to see low budget Sci-Fi, watch it! It may be useful to study for amateur directors. But I would not recommend this film to anybody looking for an exciting evening.


Surprise, surprise, as old pal Gomer Pyle used to holler when he found out something surprisingly pleasant - and Moon 44 is all that and more.

Perhaps just the first teaming of Roland Emmerich and Dean Devlin makes this worthy enough to watch. Devlin though, has no producing credits here, he plays future computer nerd Terry, the main assistant to the film's hero, Michael Pare. But Emmerich and Devlin must have hit it off and they marched on to several space themed epics.

And while there is some film history emerging, the film is a great treat. It's made sweet and tasty by an interesting story of greed on a grand scale involving planets and resources, with some subtle commentary on prison abuse.

There are comic book bad guys, and Runyonesque inhabitants, but this is some mining planet in some BFE solar system, and it needs a little character color to counter the bleak, dark existence portrayed on Moon 44.

The story continually moves forward and will hold you to the screen for the entire length. The sets are great and used well.

And the acting. For the story, fantastic.

Michael Pare, always with that bitter frown frozen to his face, is perfect as a disdainful and resentful undercover agent working with convicts. Where is he now? We could use his hero style on today's screen.

The surprise is Dean Devlin as the aforementioned computer nerd of the outer solar systems. He plays the role with sarcasm and dry wit to a tee, perfect for a nerd in the universe.

All the supporting cast is perfect, and another surprise is the score, it hits and fits, and I can't see how anyone wouldn't like this one on a late night. And just for fun, see how many cast you can find who played in later Emmerich/Devlin films. Enjoy.


Moon 44 of What??? In our normal astronomical set up, stars have planets which in turn have moons. More science---less fiction.

OK, so all of the batch of new pilots were cons except Stone. I didn't need the sexual abuse scenes and grab-ass in the shower. I wasted $1.07 on this piece of crap.


The previews looked very promising- another funny looking parody film on the 'date movies' we've seen over the past few years. But this was anything but funny. I saw an advanced screening this evening with an entirely full theater and as the scenes trudged along, practically everyone was sitting in stunned silence. The gags are predictable, the jokes are drawn out to ridiculous lengths and the usually comedic cast are, quite frankly, wasted in this mess. This makes the Scary Movie series look like The Godfather collection in comparison. And I happened to enjoy the Scary Movie series. Perhaps if you've never actually seen a satire before you will get a few chuckles out of this, but for everyone else this is just a tired & recycled complete waste of time. The only good thing about Date Movie is its short running time so you won't have to be tortured for more than 80 minutes.


The fact that this movie was allowed to advance past the "script writing" stage is beyond me.

If I could vote it 0, believe me I would. Watching paint dry would be a more cultural experience.

They actually re-created scenes from existing comedy movies & virtually did them note for note. Can somebody explain the word parody to the film makers???

Some of the acting was quite good, it's just a shame that they had so little to work with to be able to assist with making this pile of junk watchable.


This won't be a long review, as this movie doesn't warrant much more than a warning not to waste your money on it. I'm not sure how a movie so god-awful can make it to screen, but my faith in the system has been shaken. The film isn't funny, I'm not sure if it tries to be or not, but it's not. It references other movies (Meet the Parents, When Harry met Sally etc.) but doesn't really spoof them. This was the biggest problem I believe, as it doesn't have any semblance of flow or sense. Random scenes pop up, trying to get a laugh by basically reenacting the scene, not exaggerating it or making fun of it. I managed to sit through House of the Dead, but this film actually made me angry it was so unfunny. Please skip it, have one of your friends go see it instead and then ask about it. If they don't knock your teeth out for setting them up to lose money and 90 minutes of their life, then you can go see it yourself.


Its true. Everything you've read is true. This really, really, really is the worst parody ever. This movie was so bad that I spent the entire ride home from the theater, frustrated that I couldn't come up with the vocabulary to describe how I felt about it. IT IS NOT FUNNY. I, like most other people who have seen it, chuckled a few times. The rare laughs were part genuine enjoyment and part trying to make the best of a horrible situation. On the whole, though, 98% of this movie is just mind-numbingly bad. And not just because it has a lot of toilet humor and fat person jokes. The worst parts of the movie are the ones that are not only devoid of humor, but they just flat out are so stupid they don't make sense. I've never had an experience where I've sat through an hour and a half film and felt like I was watching a bunch of two minute clips of stupidity that had almost nothing to do with each other. It was almost surreal how horrible this movie was. Please, do not go see it. You're welcome.


This has got to be one of the worst parody movies ever. No, wait - scratch that. This is one of the worst movies ever. There were so few laughs in this supposed comedy. They few chuckles I heard from the audience was a nervous laughter (as in, "I can't believe I wasted my money on this..."). The toilet humor (literally) was simply retarded, and a few jokes almost worked... if they were funny. Pretty much all of the characters were annoying, and most of the parodies themselves were just unfunny. I really don't know what could have been done to save this movie and actually make it funny. The concept was great, and "date movies" are ripe for being made fun of... yet somehow this just wasn't it.


My friends and I went into this movie expecting something along the lines of a dumb but funny movie like "Scary Movie" or "Not another Teen Movie".

Sad to say, this was the worst movie I've seen since the beginning of 2005. DO NOT see this movie and DO NOT believe the advertisements for this movie as those scenes were the best parts of the film. I admit, I laughed during the Napoleon Dynamite skit, but that was probably the only funny scene in the whole film.

This film is stupid, but not stupid in a funny way. It is stupid in an EXTREMELY boring way. The only (barely) entertaining parts of the movie were in the first 10 minutes. The rest of it was filler as the scriptwriter probably ran out of dumb ideas.

I, along with probably most of the audience, felt like leaving on the spot. This is a bad film with no redeeming features.


My four other friends and I wanted to see a movie that would make us laugh and have a good time. We narrowed it down to Pink Panther or Date Movie. We decided on Date Movie. We went to the theater about 15 minutes early and when we first came in we were the only ones there, which surprised us. By the time the movie started, there were only three other groups of people, which surprised us. By ten minutes into the movie, we were no longer surprised. The movie was horrid. It was full of disgusting jokes, and not just in a sexual way. I was surprised anyone even bothered making this movie. About 45 minutes in, I was disgusted and bored. My friends were, too. I'm not the type to walk out during a movie. I never have before, but this movie was a waste of my time, the 11 bucks I spent on the ticket, and the five bucks I spent on popcorn/ candy. I have never seen a movie as bad as this one, and I have seen a lot of bad movies. Usually I'm not this prude, but this movie made me worry about our generation.


I'd imagine that the main reason that people are paying to watch this is because it stars Alyson Hannigan. Well, she's in it, and she makes the most of a thoroughly unchallenging role, but unless you're a total completist, that shouldn't be enough of a reason to waste even 80 minutes of your life on this appalling waste of talent.

What the writer/directors seem to have missed is that if you're going to parody or satirise a scene from a decent movie, you actually have to add something. It's not sufficient to just throw a bunch of stolen scenes together in the hope that the conjunction will generate humour by itself. I honestly could not see one - not ONE - original thought or idea or line in the script or direction. That in itself is something of an achievement. The whole thing plays like it was scripted by teenagers, and not teenagers from the top end of the grade curve.

In fact, I have to wonder if this films is deliberately aimed at the lowest common denominator. If so, it missed by several yards to the south.


This movie is one of the most horrible experiences of my life. With once having sat through twelve hours of constipation, I have yet to sit through a dump that was more excruciatingly painful than watching this two hour film. The worst part is it isn't even two hours, it's eighty minutes, but it makes you feel like you must have aged four or five years through this. I feel they must have added in Sophie Monk and Carmen Electra not because of their amazing acting talent, but because they felt the humor was so poor they needed to wake people up from this painfully dumb movie. The audience's reaction to the film provided more laughs than the actual movie itself. I can't decide whether I find it comical or depressing that this film managed to parody movie scenes and make them worse. Truly, the people saying these writers aren't talented are wrong, it takes an art to be able to make something this bad. The movie is a complete non sequiter too. In one scene, after the family has toasted at the rehearsal wedding dinner table, Lil' Jon comes in and says, "What? Yeah. Okay." and that's the punch line. Seriously, Hotel Rwanda was funnier than this movie. The film also contains tons of gross out humor, with a man coughing up a hairball, a woman with a hairy back, and a cat humping a corpse. Real clever guys. This is the kind of stuff that makes angels cry, and kills orphan babies. I would've walked out of this monstrosity had it not been for me hoping that maybe, just maybe, it might be slightly enjoyable than the previous torturous minutes. I mean you know something is wrong when the funniest part of a movie is a cat crapping into a toilet. This film is only really a mess of parodies thrown together that don't make any sense. I really have to say it's as witty as it gets when Frodo delivers a swift kick to the nads of Gandolf, and he screams, "My precious!" Finally, the ending seemed to have been thrown in to make an attempt to give the male audience a boner so maybe the wouldn't come out of the theater asking for a gun. No, the worst travesty is not that I spent $6.75 on this movie, but that I will never be the same person I was before. This is the stuff nightmares are made of. Don't go see this under any circumstances. If your significant other wants to see this, fake your death. Anyway you can get out of this movie is truly a blessing.

P.S. My cellphone started ringing during the movie. Why, oh why didn't I pick it up? Seriously, man eating on the phone would have been more entertaining than this movie.


I'm glad I saw this movie for free, because I would not dish out $2 to see it. The acting is horrible and the parodies of the other movies are not done well. I don't think I laughed more than twice the entire movie, and even those were small chuckles. The soundtrack used in the movie is comprised of simply played out songs that have appeared in many movies already. Even though the point of the movie was to have shocking plot twists by referencing various pop culture ideas and movies, the movie was completely predictable at all times. The only thing that kept me watching this movie was Alyson Hannigan herself.

Save your money on this one.


"Date Movie" is a movie that spoofs romantic comedies. The movie follows Julia Jones (Alyson Hannigan) as she goes through all the events that take place in order to marry her prince Grant (Adam Campbell). This process involves meeting the parents, breaking up, meeting the ex-girlfriend, planning the wedding and everything else that the romantic comedy genre has thrown our way. Laughs are supposed to ensue

Just when you thought Hollywood has reached an all time low comes "Date Movie," a movie that proves that anything can be made into a film in Hollywood and no matter how bad something is people will dish out their hard earned money to see it. "Date Movie" is by far the worst pile of crap I have seen in several years and can possibly go down in the history of film as being one of the worst movies ever made.

This movie contained zero laughs, none of the spoofs were even remotely funny. It was an insult to anyone who dished out any kind of money to see this film. The saddest part about all of this is that I knew before seeing this movie that it was going to be bad but I didn't think it could ever be as bad as it actually was. All the jokes fell flat and half way through its groundbreaking 75 minute running time I wanted to find a way to end my life so I wouldn't have to sit through another second of this horrid movie.

There really isn't a positive thing I can say about this movie. The first question that comes to mind though is who the hell came up with the idea. Why spoof comedies? Comedies are already funny so why spoof them? This is a question I wondered when I first heard about the movie and now after seeing "Date Movie" I know it can't be done and shouldn't even be attempted. While "Date Movie" only runs 75 minutes they try to spoof everything they can including Bridget Jones's Diary, Kill Bill, Say Anything, My Best Friend's Wedding, Napoleon Dynamite, How to Lose a Guy in 10 Days, My Big Fat Greek Wedding, Hitch, The Bachelor, Meet the Parents, Sleepless in Seattle, Rize, King Kong, Wedding Planner and so many more. You would think that one joke would work but in all honesty not a single one did. You just sit there staring at the screen, losing your brain cells, and wondering how on earth someone got money to produce this pile of garbage.

I guess you should know that a movie is really bad when it's not screened for critics and the trailer tries to sell you a movie by saying "from 2 of the 6 writers of Scary Movie" but there is always that small part of me that says it can't be as bad as it looks but in this case it's worse than it looks. It's a train wreck and if anyone finds this movie funny I am sorry but there must be something seriously wrong with you or you are just so incredibly immature.

This movie took 2 people to write and two people to direct. If I ever meet Jason Friedberg or Aaron Seltzer the writers and directors behind this crap I will demand that they give me my $6.75 back for paying to see this movie. These guys have no right what so ever to make a movie when they put out a movie like "Date Movie." There should be a law in Hollywood that if your movie is hated by both critics and audiences alike that you should be placed in a cell and beaten until you write everyone who watched your film a huge letter of apology. I really wonder what crap can come out of Hollywood next that can be worse than this film.

So to sum it up, "Date Movie" sucks, plain and simple. Even if you see it with little or no expectations you will be disappointed. I despise everyone who was involved with this movie from the entire cast who somehow read this script and said this is going to be good to the interns who didn't walk off the set after the first day of shooting. Why is it that we have to suffer through movies that are this bad? And Hollywood wonders why ticket sales are going down because when you pay $6-$10 to see a movie like "Date Movie" I can totally understand why people aren't going and would be leery of what Hollywood puts out. This is the worst film to come out of Hollywood in years even worse than "Gigli," "Batman and Robin" and "You Got Served."

MovieManMenzel's final rating for "Date Movie" is a 0 out of ten. This movie doesn't even deserve a 1 because nothing worked at all and people shouldn't have to be tortured like this when they see a movie.


Are you short for cash, Alyson? Is that why your beautifal face had to be seen on screen in this joke of a parody movie? I went to this movie with high expectations. I mean very high. I am a sucker for the parody genre. Ever since The Naked Gun films and Airplane!, Wrongfully Accused, Spy Hard, Scary Movie.. I've been a nut for these types of movies. So why was this one so bad? I can't really explain.. I saw all the movies they parodied, and still.. it just wasn't funny. I am absolutely in love with Alyson Hannigan. She's a very beautifal and very talented actress. Eddie Griffin is one of the funniest comedians to grace the silver screen in years. And please, Lil' Jon is in the movie! What's not to like? Well, the fact that basically, a lot of the parodies were just word for word retellings of some of the movies. The dinner scene was an ENTIRE ripoff of the Meet the Parents scene to a t. This movie tries too hard to be funny, and at sometimes its okay (the Pimp My Ride scene comes to mind), but honestly.. it just tries too hard and doesn't go anywhere. I can't say I was disappointed, it was beyond that. If there's a sequel to this atrocious comedy I'll eat my hat.


"I didn't think it would be that bad," Mr. Shade remarked as we walked out of the theater, despondent over the fact that 80 minutes of our lives were wasted and there was nothing we could do about it. "I'd say that's the worst parody I've ever seen," he continued.

I couldn't agree more. And I like parodies. When they're funny. Unlike "Date Movie," a film whose severe lack of humor suggests that the script couldn't have taken much more than an hour to write. I understand that it can be hard to write good comedy, but at least put forth an effort. I'm sorry, but was I supposed to laugh when Alyson Hannigan popped a huge zit on her face and the force of the "stuff" coming out catapulted her through a wall? That's funny? No, no it isn't.

Like I said, it's hard enough to write good comedy. And yes, I sincerely believe that "stupid" comedy CAN be funny, so don't even bother claiming I'm just some snobby reviewer who can't appreciate stupid humor. Believe me, I can - I enjoyed "Scary Movie 3" for goodness' sake! But it's even harder to cleverly satirize movies that are funny in the first place. Perhaps it's just a special brand of talent that can take funny scenes from existing movies and make them completely unfunny. Congratulations writers! If that was your goal then you succeeded.

I don't know; maybe it's me. I guess I should blame the fact that nowadays my comedic standards call for something more than a cat having sex with a human corpse. I didn't realize anybody on earth would find that humorous, but it looks like I was wrong. And I suppose I've gotten to the point in my life where extended scenes involving a cat with diarrhea just don't put a smile on my face.

I was also under the impression that the "I'll have what he's having" joke had run its course, but the writers of "Date Movie" have proved that no joke is too old or tired for them. Nor will anything stop them from dragging a scene out way beyond an acceptable length. Oh look, Eddie Griffin's face just slid up and down Fred Willard's hairy chest and Eddie pulled a hairball out of his mouth, and it only took him two or three extremely unfunny minutes to get to the big "payoff." Wow, talk about funny. Ha. Ha. My gut just busted. I better see a doctor.

A girl sticks a cherry stem in her mouth and pulls out a carousel, and I'm supposed to laugh? Hardy har har. Uh-oh, it's shock value time! They're talking about a vaginal thermometer that has been in the family for generations and how for good luck it can't be washed. Please, try not to hurt yourself from laughing too hard. These guys are pushin' the envelope and walkin' the edge!

As gross and ridiculous as all that is, the worst is when some old woman is having a romantic dinner with a fake cat and later makes out with it. Uh-huh. That's high quality stuff right there ... IF YOU HAVE THE IQ OF KEVIN FEDERLINE! Sheesh. Are you getting the picture?

If you're reading this and thinking, "Man, all that sounds hilarious!" then I weep for our future. But if you're sitting there with a look of disgust because you can't believe that somebody greenlighted a budget for this tripe then you know to avoid this like Paris Hilton with the plague, and you give me hope.

Mrs. Shade had to stay at work late, but she quickly headed straight from work to the theater, arriving just in time for the screening. After the movie, she grimaced and said, "I rushed over here for this?" I can't fault her anger. At least she didn't have to pay to see the movie. Just imagine if you go to the trouble to drive to the theater AND shell out at least $8 a ticket. Please, learn from our painful experience. Avoid it.

If you have even the slightest inkling that you might want to see this then grab a bottle of White-Out and vanquish those thoughts right now. You've been warned; don't treat this carelessly.

As always, I'm Johnny Betts, and I'm watching bad movies so that you don't have to. Don't let my efforts be in vain. Now if you'll excuse me I'm off to read a book in the hopes of recovering some lost brain cells.


I have enjoyed the Scary Movie parodies to varying extents, finding in each installment at least a few laugh out loud moments. Date Movie provided two maybe three light chuckles. That was it.

The best they could come up with for a clever tag line in the poster art was "From 2 of the 6 writers of Scary Movie." Uh okay. Well, why'd you keep these two? It was honestly like they didn't even try. I could write a better parody than this and, since I'm not a good enough writer to be hired by a studio, I just have to assume that the writers are capable of better.

There was nothing original. They were drawing such a creative blank that they spent a good five minutes having the camera watch a hand-puppet cat squirm around on a toilet seat. They interspersed fart sounds and quick shots of facial expressions from the stars. Oh yeah, that made it better.

A good parody will take the existing content it is lampooning, and present it in a humorous way by providing ironic twists. Here they simply made sets, costumes and situations similar enough for you to recognize the source material and then either laid vulgarities or toilet humor on top of it. There's no thought in that. Just pitiful.

Comedy of this nature almost always demands a straight man. In silly parodies, the straight man is often the least absurd of the various characters. In the Scary Movie series, star Anna Faris carried this role well. She's not up to a Leslie Nielsen standard yet, but she's getting better with each installment. Her delivery, her deadpan, her timing are all very nice. In Date Movie, Alyson Hannigan cannot do this at all. She used a total of two facial expressions to convey her character's reaction to each situation. It just became annoying.

I think Hannigan has proved herself to be a charming actress, not without talent. So I'll assume that the problem here was the two writers. Hopefully they'll now go join the other four.