(Spoiler included, some would say)

This film is not possible to take seriously. At some parts it is so awfully stupid that I just can't help laughing at it all. Try me for the sequence where Stallone's character jumps some 20 meters with full climbing gear or (and this is really my favorite) snuffs a bad guy by sticking him onto a stalactite. Yeah, what ungodly strength did he muster to accomplish such feats? I dunno, but he sure gives reality a run for the money.


Once in a while, a movie will sweep along that stuns you, draws you in, awes you, and, in the end, leaves you with a renewed belief in the human race from the artistry form. This is not it. This is an action movie that lacks convincing action. It stinks. Rent something else.


This is one of the worse cases of film drivel I have seen in a long while. It is so awful, that I am not sure where to begin, or even if it is worth it. The plot is the real problem, and I feel sorry for 'Sly' as he puts in a decent performance for his part. But that plot ... Oh dear oh dear. I particularly love the way near the end he manages to pop from the foot of a mountain to the top, whilst the helicopter is on the way. A climb of a day or two takes him all of five minutes! I could go on: but it isn't worth it. Apart from the grim opening (which even a five year old would be able to predict the outcome of) the rest is drivel. Sorry folks, but this is about as bad as film making gets.


Oh, what a bad, bad, very bad movie! Cowritten by and starring Sylvester Stallonethat should have been enoughand featuring too many rock-climbing scenes, vertigo, falling, and scene-chewing villains and a botched airborne heist. There are two plots, both lame. One involves a traumatic failed rescue, and the other involves bad people wrecking an airplane for booty, and killing various harmless people whenever possible. The usually reliable John Lithgow, perhaps depressed by the sheer awfulness of the product, is reduced to sneering and calling those for whom he doesn't care "Bostid!" in a vague approximation of an English accent. Janine Turner, who was sprightly and enigmatic when she played Maggie on Northern Exposure, is sadly wasted in the part of a rescue climber and pilot. Stallone is stolid and muscle-headed. No deathless lines in this one. No living lines, either.


If you like the standard Sly flicks that involve over the top action, unbelievable stunts (unbelievable is not intended to be complimentary here), and retarded dialogue; you will love this steaming pile of mountain goat dung. I had high hopes based on the trailer. I thought that Stalone was going to be forced in his "has-been" days to yield to smarter people and make an action film that would place a credible hero in a credible situation where the story, setting, and (believable) action would prevail. I crave action that is at least close enough to reality that you can imagine the fear and excitement that would come from such an event. My limited knowledge of hypothermia and its effects rendered at least one scene laughably ridiculous. Judge Dredd is only better because you know going into the theater that you are going to see a comic book made into a movie. The character, setting and everything else are beyond comparison to anything we might encounter ourselves. Cliffhanger on the other hand turns a mountain climbing guide into Rambo before you can say "yo, Adrian!"


I am still shuddering at the thought of EVER seeing this movie again.

I have seen action films, I have even liked quite a few of them, but this one goes over the top.

Not only does it have the worst male actor ever (Sly Stallone) playing the lead role, but the plot of the movie is so stupid from the beginning (why not rob the money while the plane is on the ground, would be hell of a lot easier) that it requires a person with IQ less than his shoenumber to believe it.

Furthermore, the plot has no real twists at all, a three year old kid could guess what comes next. It is a set of cliches (of action genre), with Sly performing even worse than his other movies (he was better even in Rambo III if you watch that movie as a comedy rather than action film). Now there is an actor who can't act A) surprised B) sad C) anything else than his basic face.

I would still like to point out that this movie has two factors that might make some people like it. EXPLOSIONS are outstanding, but then... you can see better on the 4th of July. LANDSCAPES are magnificient, but then... there are documentaries about the Alps and Himalayas, so you can see better sights that way, rather than waste time on this flick.

Go watch some other movie instead, there are hundreds, even thousands better action movies.


Let me start by stating that I usually do like Renny Harlin's directing style, for the most part, and that the cinematographer should be commended for some the shots. Unlike Harlin's "Elm Street 4", and "Die Hard 2" which I really liked, there is something that is missing from this movie. That, my friends, is a script. The dialogue in movies like this is always pretty awful, but this one takes the gold medal for stupidity. There are so many awful lines in this movie, I don't even want to have to remember any of them. Not just that but the execution of the lines is pathetic and seems more suited toward a bad porn movie than an action adventure. It's almost like Harlin thought that if they slowed down the words being said, they could improve the script. Wrong again.

The sad part is that there is some talented actors thrown into bad roles with worse dialogue. Stallone has never been a favorite of mine, but when he is acting circles around Lithgow, Turner, and the worst of the bunch Rooker, there is something wrong with this picture. Lithgow played one of the best villains in "Ricochet", yet comes across as someone who can't act to save his life here. How is that possible? I've always been a huge fan of his and he gets schooled in acting by Stallone, who himself still phoned-in his performance. Turner's part is so small and pointless, but she still manages to appear lost on screen. Michael Rooker CAN act. I know this because I have witnessed it in "Days of Thunder", but he seems like he is READING his lines from cue cards. Has it come to this? When Rooker and Lithgow have scenes together where they are speaking, I just wanted the movie to end right there, or have them both amazingly find their acting ability. Unfortunately, neither of those things occurred.

Which brings me back to Harlin, who can be the only one to really blame for this mess other than the screenwriters. It's his fault that I was never drawn into this movie at all, because he should have made the people actually act. The script is not very good, but still the actors' performances are what destroys this movie and that has to lie with the director. I don't care how much was paid for the special effects, which for the most part are good, you still can't just sacrifice the movie with terrible acting.

Plus, the pacing of this movie seems to be off. The opening sequence was good and the plane scene was very well done, but how are you supposed to care about the outcome of the heist at all. I mean I understand that they were trying to create tension with all of the bells and whistles of the plane scene, but I really didn't care if they got the money or not in that scene. If the bad guy's would have won early, maybe I wouldn't have had to witness one of the worst movies ever!


There are some Stallone movies I like, but this movie didn't meet my low expectations. I found this movie hard to believe. For example, a bunch of terrorists who crash land in the wilderness are prepared to survive for at least two days. Also, in all this wilderness Stallone and company keep running across bridges and ladders that provide convenient short-cuts or plot devices. Also, the Treasury cops don't seem to coordinate anything with the local rescue people. Also, bad guys who couldn't hit the side of a barn with really high-tech looking automatic weapons.

I liked John Lithgow's villain initially, but the character is such a complete psychopath that he doesn't care at all about any of his own bad guys, or all of them getting killed. Eventually I just couldn't believe the character anymore.

Not worth the price of a rental, not even worth taking the time to watch.


I saw this movie with my rock climbing instructor, and we found the entire thing so ridiculous as to be beyond pity. (For one, if Stallone is out free-climbing by himself, there's no need to carry any gear, but I guess those dangling carabiners look sorta "mountain climby," so let's throw them in). For those lobotomized folks who think that Colorado looks anything like the Dolomites in Italy (where the movie was filmed), well the Hollywood moguls have got a lot more ridiculous & foul-smelling stuff for you to swallow.


I don't know who wrote the script for this movie, but from the first moment on, I was irritated. Of all possible decisions they could make up in the mountains, why do they make the decision, which is the most dangerous of all? Why do the criminals act dumb, although they managed to get a huge amount of money out of a bank and get away with it? Why doesn't the main criminal land the helicopter, shoot Stallone, grab the money and fly away with the chick as a hostage? And there are more cases of illogical behavior. I'd give this movie 5 points for nice action and great landscape scenery, but due to the illogical behavior of the characters, I just can give this movie 1 point...


There is no question as to who is in command of the training of cadets in this film: Major Chick Davis (Pat O'Brien). O'Brien plays an officer who adheres to military discipline in the creation of a new kind of soldier from his cadets--the bombardier. But he is not so rigid as to be unfair or unfriendly. In fact, he even changes his opinion as to the value of women working in the military. He's tough when he has to be, yet at other times he is a clear mix of coach and pastor, roles he perfected in other films. His character is the foundation of the action around which everything revolves. O'Brien seems natural in the role, and plays it in fine fashion. Two things help this movie: O'Brien's performance and the spectacular special effects ending.


Basically a typical propaganda film for the last good war. But there were a couple things that struck me. First was the use of mouthed epithets. In two cases the Scott character mouths one, once at the beginning when he drops his bomb off target during the bomb-off ("dammit") and once when he is trying to sway a bombardier into being a pilot ("s*%t"). I could be wrong about the second instance but I replayed it several times and that's what it looks like to me. The third case is when the Anne Shirley character wishes the O'Brien character goodbye and good luck ("Give 'em hell") over the roar of the engines. She must have thought that was too unladylike because she clearly says "heck". I also found interesting the character that has moral problems with bombing, specifically bombing civilians. The avuncular superior officer assures him that only military targets will be hit due to the precision of the bombsight used. Given what we know about the LeMay's later strategy of firebombing Japanese cities into oblivion this scene plays with not a little irony. I remember McNamara's quoting of LeMay in "The Fog of War", something to the effect that if the US did not win the conflict he would be tried as a war criminal. The ending is way overwrought, in keeping with the movie. It reminded me a bit of the end of White Heat (I'm not comparing the films, just the ending!). Maybe it's just 'cause he gets blowed up. Blowed up real good!!!


Philip. K. Dickian movie. And a decent one for that matter. Better than the Paycheck (Woo) and that abomination called Minority Report (Spielberg). But lets face it, the twisting and cheesing ending was a bit too much for me. Half way through the movie I already started to fear about such kind of ending, and I was regrettably right. But that does not mean that the film is not worth its time. No, not at all. First half (as already many here have commented) is awesome. There are some parts where you start to doubt whether the director intended to convey the message that showmanship is highly important thing in the future (we will do such kind on corny sf things because we CAN) or is it simply over combining. But the paranoia is there and feeling "out of joint" also. Good one.


Jeremy Northam struggles against a "Total Recall" clone script and disposable romantic by-play to bring life to a confused character. Lucy Liu graduates her acting from a wooden start to a workman-like finish. You can't fail to laugh when viewing her interviews on the DVD when she uses the term "Femme fatal" and "Romance". French film-noir actress she is not and they lack chemistry together.

This movie fails, not in the plot or the action sequences but in the lack of attention to detail in the films photography and ham-fisted portrayal of the world of technology surrounding the main protagonists. Little attempt is made to dress the scenery to represent any contiguous filmic landscape or period. Automobiles are very 1990's and the architecture barely modern with open plans that hint at a restricted budget rather than conscious set dressing techniques.

The technology is positively hilarious. Massive "2001: A Space Odyssey" mainframes fed by man-portable CD-ROM's with data collected for some unexplained reason, in spite of the proliferating communications network that even the most un-savvy technologist today would obviously be aware. There is an obvious lack of research done here and given the open-source nature of the cyber-community, research would have cost little more than a bulletin board and personal time.

DVD interviews also reveal the original movie name was "Company Man" but this likely ditched in order to cash in on Matrix hype. The "Cypher" title has only the slightest link with the movie. Terry Gilliam would have done wonders with this concept; and completely re-written the Decalogue.

This is Tele-movie quality and extremely disappointing for a movie length production. It might have made a good sub-plot for "Alias".


I think this film has been somewhat overrated here. There are some things to admire in it; for one thing it deserves credit for being a science fiction(ish) film which relies on its story instead of special effects and action sequences to carry the day. The supporting cast is good, the set design and cinematography are good, and the ideas are interesting enough (though they are beginning to seem a little tired after the many mediocre Dark City / Memento / Fight Club clones of recent years). But the film is undone by poor characterization, wooden performances from the lead actors, and a laughably bad ending.

The main problem I had was that the protagonist was neither likable nor unlikable. I realize that part of the story dictates that he should be a bit of a (wait for it...) cipher, but I was utterly unable to work up any empathy for a character that just seemed like a boring, anonymous schlub of a man. What character transformation there is for this sad sack is artificially forced on him by the plot. Lead actor Jeremy Northam succeeds in conveying that the protagonist is confused and hapless, but fails at inspiring any sympathy for him. Opposite him, Lucy Liu does what she can with a character who has no real personality of her own, unless being the embodiment of a spy-movie cliché counts as personality.

One of the biggest disappointments of this movie is the ending. I won't give any spoilers here, but I will say that a surprise twist at the end was telegraphed pretty clearly at least 45 minutes before it occurred. Further, after being content to be a quirky, idea-oriented movie for the first hour or so, the last few scenes suddenly and terribly devolve into the worst kind of Hollywood pap, complete with big explosions and special effects. The revealing of the film's McGuffin at the end is poorly done, and at the end the characters seem even less likable than they did before some of the film's main plot threads were resolved.

The movie's not all bad, though. It does manage to maintain a certain low level of tension throughout most of it, despite the slow pacing (although I think I have a higher than average tolerance for slow-paced movies). And there are some moments when the unsettled, paranoiac feeling that director Vincenzo Natali was clearly trying to evoke rises to the surface. But in the end, these elements aren't enough to overcome the flaws in the film's acting and script. There is probably a good movie that covers these same themes and ideas, but this isn't it.


'I'm working for a sinister corporation doing industrial espionage in the future and I'm starting to get confused about who I really am, sh*#t! I've got a headache and things are going wobbly, oh no here comes another near subliminal fast-cut noisy montage of significant yet cryptic images...'

I rented this movie because the few reviews out there have all been favourable. Why? Cypher is a cheap, derivative, dull movie, set in a poorly realised bland futureworld, with wooden leads, and a laughable ending.

An eerie sense that something interesting might be about to happen keeps you watching a series of increasingly silly and unconvincing events, before the film makers slap you in the face with an ending that combines the worst of Bond with a Duran Duran video.

It's painfully obvious they have eked out the production using Dr Who style improvised special effects in order to include a few good (if a little Babylon 5) CGI set pieces. This sub Fight Club, sub Philip K Dick future noir thriller strives for a much broader scope than its modest budget will allow.

Cool blue moodiness served up with po-faced seriousness - disappointingly dumb. This is not intelligent Sci-Fi, this is the plot of a computer game.


I watched this film recently on DVD and I have to say I wasn't impressed. I know it's taboo to knock independent films, but this one felt devoid of entertainment.

The premise was interesting, but the execution of it fell short. I found myself thinking "okay, they're just getting into it, the story will pick up soon". Before I knew it, the film was over and the story never picked up. I can't say I found the acting all that impressive either. It was pretty bad. Not Star Wars prequel trilogy bad, but bad nonetheless.

I'm not sure what the running time was, I'll assume two hours (because it's a safe estimate). Anyway, when the film was finished, I felt as though I deserved some kind of recognition for the will power I exerted in not stopping the film and walking away halfway through.

Again, I was thoroughly unimpressed, and eventually bored out of my wits. I'm not one of those guys who requires fast-paced action and explosions in a film, so don't start in on me as that being a reason for not liking it.


Somewhere inside this movie is a half-hour episode from The Twilight Zone trying to get out. Whereas Cube was taut, well-made, claustrophobic and mind-engaging, I'm afraid Cypher is a bloated, tedious rehash of several well-worn themes which just don't add up to much, especially if you have seen almost any other half-way decent sci-fi film before.

Cypher manages to drag all the way through its relatively short 95 minutes right to the incompetent ending. None of the characters spark off each other, and for a film made in 2002 the technology is truly cheesy. It is difficult to connect this tired and uninspired movie with the director of Cube. It's not a bad movie, but it is most definitely not a good one.

When you've watched the grass grow and paint dry and are bored of your stick insects then by all means watch this film, but the other activities will probably prove more stimulating.


Despite the overwhelming cult following for this sad "documentary," I must admit to having cordially loathed the film which struck our party as far more a distressing exploitation piece than usefully informative. That said, after seeing the magnificent stage musical drawn from it, one can appreciate what the film might have been in surer hands.

One suspects that those many of us who actively suffered through the film may have had any campy delights its crueler fans enjoyed destroyed by the uncomfortable suspicion that too many of us - or those we know - are only a misstep or two away from the deplorable plight of the two mad women depicted who live in and contribute to a squalor they seem incapable of controlling or escaping.

The film leaves the viewer desperately wondering how any person could have slid to this level of degradation and, unlike the musical, offers no cautionary clues or explanations, only a horror show unredeemed by humor or insight.

This soul crushing flatness of the film makes the achievement of the stage version (hopefully to be filmed ultimately for cable) all the more remarkable. Act II is faithful in almost every detail to the film under discussion but strangely, setting the sad inmates' plight to music, raises the human tragedy to art. Even more important, this act is preceded by a fine Act I where we meet the women before their decent into mutually enabled madness, and are offered hints how their isolated purgatory came about. In short, everything which the FILM is lacking.

To the filmmakers' credit (or their successors), the excellent Criterion DVD release includes out-takes and bonus material that partially redeem the main film - behind the scenes photographs, interviews and commentary - filling in some of the blank spots the original editing consciously decided to omit in its drive for unadulterated horror and depression. They can't make the amateurish film itself satisfying, but they can at least make it a bit more comprehensible.

Ultimately though, it is only the remarkable stage piece inspired by and drawn from it by book writer Doug Wright, composer Scott Frankel and lyricist Michael Korie which raises the rating of the original GREY GARDENS above a single (generous) star.


A low point in human interaction was reached by the Maysles Brothers with this film. Do remember, you who used words like "masterpiece"when reviewing this film, that these Maysles creeps didn't just happen to drive to the Hamptons and happen to shoot film on some eccentric people. No, when they found these two poor pathetic people they then had to finance their project (and imagine what they told the money people to sell the project). Then they befriended the two extremely vulnerable women. No meeting of minds here or real consensual participation. These wretched Maysles smiled, kissed ass, did whatever they had to to get the Beales to cooperate and then exploited them as viciously as has ever been done. One would like to think that these hustlers had occasional thoughts of remorse and guilt. But the film-making process, given the preplanning, actual shooting and then editing took a lot of time and their goal had no provisions for actually relating to the Beales as human beings. An exploitation film perpetrated by the vilest of people. As time accrued their film-making reputation has been seriously stained by what they did here. Their reputation as human beings is execrable. That is what people will remember them as. Grotesque hustlers.


I wouldn't be so quick to look at all the good reviews and say this might be a good show..This show is only good if you don't know what "talent" is..I won't even say how offensive it is (I know it can be offensive to a lot of people) because thats not really what bothers me about the show.. What bothers me is that people watch this and think it's funny..It makes me feel like our generation is getting to stupid and I'm actually scared that it will one day be run by people who watch this garbage..

Basically the plot is simple..it's about an offensive,self centered,spoiled women(Sarah Silvermen) getting through everyday life..

Thats it..Like that hasn't been done a million times..In fact almost every joke either has been done or is racist..

Sarah also likes to sing..I like her voice..thats it..not the lyrics..The lyrics are dreadful..which she likes to sing about a lot of things..

If you like to see a hot women put everyone else down and make them feel like crap while at the same time farting and saying crap about every race then this show is for you..


Comedy Central has a habit of putting on great programs at times-Chappelle's Show, The Daily Show, Colbert Report, and then there are those that some people love or hate-Stella, Dr. Katz. Then there are some shows that have their defenders but are just plain awful- Mencia, and now, Sarah Silverman.

This show is based on the fact Silverman is self-Centered, which can be funny (Colbert Report) but can be horrible (Mind of Mencia). It should shock no one that I believe the latter is the case. This show is a parody of a sitcom and society, a program so absurd it loses itself in its absurdity and it simply isn't funny. A woman farting has been done in comedy many many times because its not something that's common. We don't need 25 minutes of it. When a criminal is disarmed by a queef, it simply loses its appeal-we saw it in Jay and Silent Bob Strike back, except the women were hotter, and the whole scene was more absurd, making it better. But the best comparison of this show is to Stella, except Stella was more subtle, which is what made the absurdist comedy funny. It had better acting, and I suppose, a bit more of a fantastical realist view.

Perhaps the fact some reviews are so negative (I'm very skeptical of the critical acclaim but do not dispute fan reaction) to this show is the amount of advertising on it, very obnoxious ads through many programs far outdo advertising on for other programs. Many people are wondering why Sarah Silverman has a career, and others are still bitter when better shows have been canceled. This show should've never made it past the unaired pilot stage. Back to Norm showed far more promise, yet this show makes it further. And as far as critics being correct, many things have been universally panned have seen their status rise immensely. Last I checked, Britney Spears gets good reviews too also. Take that comparison however you want because someone will no doubt accuse me of being psychotic on IMDb for not liking this show.


I have given this show (I have only watched seven episodes) four stars because most of her jokes/set-ups appear to fail. Some are not funny outright, but some are amusing -- in a 12 year old boy kind of way. She reminds me of that New York painter who throws paint upon a canvas, calls it art and sells it for a lot of money. Silverman throws out what she's got, including the kitchen sink, while she prays that a few things stick to the wall in her effort to be funny but different.

However what she's "got" often times is not enough, as though she lacks the kind of follow-through a good comedian needs to succeed.

The whole enterprise is like an under done potato.


And when I watch Sarah Silverman, I get the same results. I love quirky, irreverent humor. BUT this woman is so darned B-O-R-I-N-G, annoying, and yawn-worthy. She's also totally lacking in anything whatsoever humorous. The deadpan way she tries to deliver her lines is just dead on arrival because she's just not funny. I watched two segments of her program and was ready for Novocaine.

Geez, my kid (age 19) saw her promos on Comedy Central and said she was a "dumb chick." I thought that was a compliment. The one where she says "Watch my show or I'll kill my dog," is actually believable. I know she's a wanna be comedienne. She just comes across as a warped nut-case. I just don't ever want to see her around MY dog.


Sarah Silverman is really the "flavor of the month" comic right now. Is she really worth all the hype? Yes and no. She is funny at times, sometimes hilariously so (her standup routine is actually quite interesting, though not always funny). Other times, you're feeling cheated by the media for overhyping yet another performer. She is one of those really cute comedians that men especially flock to, saying that they dig her intelligence and wit. But if you corner them, most men will admit that they just want to sleep with her, and that's why they watch her. She reminds me of why many men flocked to Margaret Cho and Janeane Garofalo, even though neither of them are really "hot" now in terms of popularity. Sarah doesn't drink or smoke (at least cigs), so she should be hot when she's 60, so her fans (especially the male ones) can rejoice.

As for this show, it's very much like her comedy. When it works, it's hilarious. When it doesn't, it's full blown tedium and very, very boring. The AIDS episode here is the best one. It's consistently funny, and has some really good satire in it. Brian Poeshn's character has an unhealthy obsession with Tab in one episode, and it's hilarious seeing him in a Tab T-shirt. But they never really go anywhere with it, and it eventually wears out its welcome. Sarah's character in the series is rather annoying, the gay couple (Brian Poeshn and some other guy) seems tacked on and never really does anything for the show as a whole, and the supporting players (including Sarah's real life sister, Laura, who doesn't look a thing like her) are OK. When the jokes hit, they're brilliant. When they don't, they're awful, and I mean really awful. There's also an obsession with coprophilia here (aka poop jokes), which seems to have replaced actual wit and intelligence in comedy today. So should you watch this show? If you have a crush on Sarah, go for it. You can gaze at her and pretend she's yours. As for her show, it's ranges from good to absolute zero.


I understand the jokes quite well, they just aren't good. The show is horrible. I understand it, and that's another horrible thing about it. The only cool character there EVER was on the show was that one hobo in that one episode, but then I see the other episode including that episode and the show is horrible. It's not funny, NOT funny! I don't want people to say "Only smart people get it" because if they're so smart why do they judge people they don't even know and say that they're not smart or intellectual enough to understand it? It's like saying "The sky is red" but never looking outside. But anyways, this is absolutely the worst show I have ever seen in my life, the jokes are terrible, I mean, you can understand them, they're just horrible, her controversy is very lame, her fart jokes and other jokes on bodily fluids are really dumb and usually consist of really bad acting. I'm not sure what these "smart" people see in this show, but judging others when they don't even know anything about any of us isn't exactly a smart comment.


Can we say retarded? This girl has no talent what so ever, nothing but complete garbage. You people are just marking 10 stars because you know most people hate this pathetic woman, if its such a "great" show then why did it get canceled after 6 measly episodes? exactly. People that support her, please seek help you do NOT know what is funny. Her stand up comedy is just so stupid, seriously how do you find this trash funny? The show tries to poke fun at stereo types and other things that are not funny at all. Carlos Mencia is funny and to that stupid poster, he actually has fans and his show is on the air so I'm sorry your a redneck who doesen't get his jokes. Please give me my 20 minutes of my life back.


Comedy Central has had success with original programming using professional comics. The Chapelle Show, Mind of Mencia, The Daily Show and the hugely popular Colbert Report all star professional comics and all are, or in the case of Chapelle Show, were, solid shows. Given that Sarah Silverman is one of the best female comics in the business, I was expecting good stuff when I tuned in.

I was so disappointed.

There were some mildly funny sequences, but given that the star is the caliber of Silverman, the show could have been much better. It was just the pilot, and hopefully next week's show will be better. If not, get her some help in the form of better writers for the show.


I had just watched one episode of this program and I couldn't even get to the end of the program. Every minute I had watched this program my I.Q must of dropped about 10 points. This is basically like a children's program but with swearing. Not even the swearing and the insults she tells other people made me laugh. Anyways the story must of been written by a monkey and the people who actually put this script for this program through for filming must of been held at gun point and had no choice but to film this retarded, disappointing, horribly acted program. Sarah Silvermann should use the little money she actually made from this program and get some god damn acting lessons.


Unfortunately for Sarah Silverman this show doesn't compliment her at all.The character isn't even remotely likable and it's not a situation where you think "oh she's such i b*tch i love her" just "she's such a b*tch".This character is just a plain old self righteous, mean, b*tch.Sarah seems to struggle to have to carry this show because she's the only semi funny one in it.The mood, the dialogue it's all so damn boring and dry it's like listening to your grandpa go on and on about the marbles he collected as a kid.

The Sarah Silverman Program is so unbelievably boring that i was thinking of changing the channel to watch old repeats of Married With children something that is funny because the characters are so "immoral" and "rude".I'm sorry but i don't find a show packed with dry humour and corny off the wall story lines about some angry, bitter, loser's angry, bitter life with her annoying as hell sister and gay friends who sound like Keanu Reeves with a cold anywhere close to funny.I can't stand this show even though generally i find Sarah Silverman to be that "I love her cause she's such a b*tch character" like in School Of Rock, and most of her stand up.I think this show is boring with characters who think being mean and saying and doing things for shock value eg. the constant pube, diarrhea and $hit in general for laughs.The Sarah Silverman program attempts to be funny and fails it either needs a laugh track or better writers.Someone compared it to South Park but it's not even close.I've expressed my opinions on The Sarah Silverman Program and won't become an annoying troll meaning you won't see me being a b*tch and constantly posting stuff like "This show sucks" and "Why isn't this cancelled yet".I don't like The Sarah Silverman Program if you do enjoy.


I remember my parents not understanding Saturday Night Live when I was 15. They also did not understand Rock n Roll and many other things. Now that I am approaching their age, I still remember, and find I understand many of the things my kids love. But this is pathetic. I cannot say I have seen any by Sarah except for a few appearances here and there. They were reasonable. I do not see her as anything special. But this show is just so far below what I expected from her. The IMDb write up made it sound like potential. So, just for that, I started watching the first episode. I turned it off half way through. Anything else is better that that. Jokes that are meant for a 5 year old presented on a supposed adult program. Well, Sarah, this adult is inly moved to turn you off. I just cant believe that someone actually financed this insult to comedy. Only good thing I can say is that there are sooooo many bad jokes deposited here, saving other shows from such an embarrassment.


I watched an episode. Yes I sat through the entire miserable experience, and I have to say, this brand of comedy is one of the worst you will get. Imagine Peter Griffin, of Family Guy fame. Now imagine Peter Griffin as a(admittedly slim and minus the glasses) woman, except that he now lacks the something that made him hilarious. Peter Griffin is an idiot, but he doesn't know he's an idiot. Sarah has none of the genuine character, none of the acting ability to pull her character off. Maybe its the trite, formulaic jokes that pull her comedy even lower than her character can take it by herself. Maybe it's the lack of believable foils. Her insensitive, bigoted persona may appeal to insensitive, bigoted people unlike the mass appeal that Stephen Colbert's insensitive, bigoted character has. Like Bill O'Reilly, Sarah creates an annoying, unfunny character. She lacks something that is necessary for the genre of satire, let alone for the entire world of comedy. What Sarah Silverman lacks, its noticeable. And when you don't believe it and identify with it, it's not funny anymore.


Considering its popularity, I found this movie a huge disappointment. Maybe I was expecting too much from this film. After all, it is one of the most well known martial arts films of the 1970s, but I could never figure out why. The story is uninteresting. It is also a very talky movie with sporadic action sequences. My biggest problem with the movie was that the story does not offer a character that I could root for, since the intended hero is an idiot. Director Chang has no sense of style, and he is unable to hide the glaring imperfections found in the narrative. I know this is not supposed to be high art, but I found the movie boring. Definitely not the best example of this much-beloved genre. Its cult status escapes me. I recommend you to skip it.


I rarely write reviews for IMDb.com, but I feel compelled to warn potential viewers that this movie is terrible. Just terrible. I like Shaw Bros. movies (I'm not a hater.), and I had high expectations for this one since I found it listed on many "10 Best Kung Fu/Martial Arts Movies" websites. (I'm now convinced that those 10 Best lists are all cut-and-paste jobs.) First of all, there's barely any action in the film. Most of the movie consists of talking about the plot, which is an amazing feat because it's thin at best. And the action itself may have been impressive back in 1978, but it's routine by today's standards. A special warning to Netflix users: the DVD they ship is terrible; the picture is horrendous and it's not even 16:9 enhanced.


I don't buy kung fu movies for a plot. I buy them for fight scenes. A bad plot can be forgiven for excellent fight scenes, but not the other way around.

The story was decent, but moved too slowly for my tastes. There were about 3 or 4 mediocre fight scenes throughout, lasting only a couple of minutes apiece. The last fight was a bit longer, but by that point i was so bored i didn't even pay attention to it.


Apparently, the people that wrote the back of the box did not bother to watch this so-called "movie." They described "blindingly choreographed intrigue and violence." I saw no "intrigue." I instead saw a miserable attempt at dialogue in a supposed kung fu movie. I saw no "violence." At least, I saw nothing which could cause me to suspend my disbelief as to what could possibly hurt a man with "impervious" skin--but here I am perhaps revealing too much of the "plot." Furthermore, as a viewer of many and sundry films (some of which include the occasional kung fu movie), I can authoritatively say that this piece of celluloid is unwatchable. Whatever you may choose to do, I will always remain

 Correct,

 Jonathan Tanner

P.S. I was not blinded by the choreography.


Having enjoyed Jean Arthur in "The Devil and Miss Jones", my interest was peaked, so I tried sitting through this second-string screwball outing about an investigation into the death of a jockey--but I didn't make it to the end. Arthur, photographed in a gauzy, movie-magazine fashion, either wants alimony from ex-husband William Powell or another shot at marriage, but I never felt for her because the character is just a string of wisecracks (she's the type of heroine prone to comical curiousness, but once inside a morgue--like all women in these '30's comedies--she faints). William Powell reportedly had a high time working with Miss Arthur, but you'd never know it from the end result; they look awkward standing next to each other, hesitant over their banter. The actor playing Powell's valet is excruciating, and the pauses for viewer laughs are pregnant with unease.


This was my first, and probably the last Angelopoulos movie. I was eager to get into it, as it featured Mastroianni, one of my favorite actors and was a film By Theo, of whom I've heard a lot. The opening was promising, a long shot over a jeep of soldiers across the Albanian-Greek border. OK! but that was all. Nothing left. The movie had big holes and I don't know which to mention first. The main plot of the story is revealed to the journalist by the old woman. during a long walk. It's like a 15 minutes monologue, killing the action and viewers patience, nothing happening on screen for 15 or even 20 minutes, apart this old lady telling a story. All that is presumed to be shown through action, was simply told to the camera by the old lady. In a moment, the equippe of TV was heading to the bar. They turn the corner and immediately the winter begins! Probably, shot in different days, continuity leaked. A lot of problems with the story-telling, it went from absurd to irrational never sticking to a style, making the viewer asking questions that never got answers. Poor Mastroianni, given a role which lacked integrity or charm. On the other hand, as many Greeks or Albanians or Balcan people would agree with, the movies showed lot of historic, ethnic, or politically incorrectness, just for the sake of making a movie about "humanity" as a red in another review. A lot more to say, but no time to lose on a poor movie, which was not movie at all, but lunacies of a person impressed on film and paid with state money.


Question: how does a bourgeois director treat a subject like immigration ? Answer: by turning it into an existential alienation parable.

Yes, we're back in the early 90s, just after the disintegration of the Eastern block and the subsequent flooding of immigrants in the European Union, and what better way to deal with the subject than making a film about an existentially alienated middle-class journalist, an existentially alienated upper-class politician, his existentially alienated rich wife, and so on.

In the background, immigrants are asking for political asylum in an unnamed Greek village near the borders. I guess that way Angelopoulos can show some social awareness, while dealing with the existentially troubled upper-classes. I mean honestly, the scene where some top-ranking army-officer curses his destiny cause he sent his daughter to study in London is enough to make you puke.

Anyway, it can't be that bad, Angelopoulos is a master of the cinematic art after all, right ? Wrong. It's at this point when his mannerisms start getting too artificial, sort of like a filtered image in Photoshop. His usual tricks show up: there are blurred windows, blurred lights, a weird wedding, a walk by the river-shore, and people with yellow water-coats. Also Mastroianni breaks new ground for most sleepwalking performance ever. Avoid really. Go for his early films.


There is one great moment in *Surviving Christmas* that almost makes it worth the pain: James Gandolfini cracks a shovel over Ben Affleck's stupid head.

This movie serves as yet another unfortunate example of James Gandolfini proving what a great actor he is whilst simultaneously besmirching his career by acting in this film.

Young and wealthy ad exec, Drew Latham (Ben Affleck) has been inculcated into believing that one must never be alone on Christmas. (And there, from the outset, is the underlying problem with our suspension of disbelief in this idiotic movie: how many people of Drew's social standing, in 2004, truly care one way or another whether Christmas is spent alone or with half the family or with a fifty-dollar prostitute?) Storyline finds Drew buying off a family to spend Christmas with, on the condition that they pretend to be his own, insensately ignoring all the indications to the contrary that his money has not bought the emotions he was seeking.

For $250,000, a surly suburban truck driver, Tom Valco (James Gandolfini), and his disheveled wife, Christine (Catherine O'Hara), agree to be Drew's ad hoc family, against protests from their son, Brian (a very one-dimensional Josh Zuckerman) and daughter, Alicia (a very soft-focused Christina Applegate). Drew then spends the rest of the movie supposedly recapturing his youth or - something. The messages in this movie are as twisted and illogical as its dry-mouthed storyline. Fraught with overt psychoses, Drew plasters a fake smile on his face and blindly remains in denial against every denigration that he was supposedly buying the Valco family to avoid.

Which begs the question: If Drew is paying these people to recapture some semblance of joyous familial emotion, how psychotic must he be to pretend happiness amongst their barbs and mental anguish over his presence? It is not a case of the Valco family hiding their true feelings and pretending to be happy while around Drew - three of the four members make it patently clear they despise him. Is he so incognizant that he cannot see that his money is not buying him the "family" atmosphere he was inculcated into believing was a truth in the first place? As with all movies this opprobrious, one wonders how *four* screenwriters could possibly get so tangled in their own narcissistic dreams of appearing in a credits sequence that they will overlook any semblance of plausibility, or intelligence.

Director Mike Mitchell, who was responsible for *Deuce Bigalow: Male Gigolo* - stop right there. 'Nuff said.

Gandolfini and O'Hara somehow manage to shine, proving their mettle amongst this mess. Christina Applegate is willowy and cutesy and blond and fiery in all the right places, scathingly cutting Drew into little strips of carcass for most of the movie, then doing an about-face and falling in love with him because the script tells her to.

And I wouldn't go so far as to say that Affleck is a bad actor, but John Schneider better look over his shoulder. There's a whole new level of Desperately Seeking Talent in town.


I get the feeling that those involved in making "Surviving Christmas" didn't put much thought into the movie. The characters are so inconsistent and the plot makes so little sense that the movie played like a rough draft of a script thrown together with little but the one-liner concept of a rich guy paying a family to let him spend Christmas with them.

Ben Affleck portrays Drew Latham, the typical Hollywood image of a wealthy, egotistical advertising executive who buys his way through life. His girlfriend, Missy, leaves him shortly before Christmas because she's disgusted that Drew wanted to take her to Fiji for Christmas, which she calls "the family holiday," and the fact that Drew has never introduced her to his family. We later find out that Drew's father left when he was 4 years old, and his mother is dead, so it's a mystery why he doesn't just say that he has no family, rather than allow his girlfriend to believe that he doesn't care about his family.

Out of fear of being alone on Christmas, Drew tracks down Missy's shrink (why? I have no idea), who suggests he do a forgiveness ritual at his childhood home. When he meets the family living in his childhood home, the Valcos, Drew offers them $250,000 to pretend to be his family, so he can relive his fond childhood memories. He gets angry when he later finds out that they have an adult daughter, Alicia (Christina Applegate), because he "doesn't have a sister," and even goes so far as to write a script for the family to follow so that they act more like his "real" family. None of this makes any sense once Drew reveals that he grew up with no family but his mother.

Also inexplicable is the character of Alicia, who is annoyed that her family accepted Drew's money, and refuses to play along with his fantasy. But for no good reason, she suddenly starts to like Drew, and in a matter of minutes goes from hating his guts to acting like his girlfriend. Drew is such a complete jerk throughout the movie that even his sad story about the lonely Christmases of his childhood evokes no sympathy; I almost wish he had finished with, "Just kidding! The real reason I don't see my family is that they all have restraining orders against me!" (2/10)


This movie was pretty absurd. There was a FEW funny parts. Its goes right in to the bin of movies in my memory where I think, "Hmm.....that movie had a few funny parts, but overall, pretty ridiculous plot (or lack of)."

I thought it seemed like Ben was trying a little too hard to be a cooky funny guy. And I didn't understand how he was a self made multi-millionaire and still such an idiot. Anyways, I like Ben Affleck. He makes some crap, but hey, I can forgive him. I mean, I liked Jersey Girl, I didn't think Gigli was all his fault, I like him overall. I guess he's kinda like the kid you feel sorry for cuz he just can't seem to get it right.

My advice would be to avoid this flick. It didn't really develop in to a workable plot and Catherine O'hara and Jimmy G. weren't used as well as they could have been. They deserved better. Overall, this movie is NOT Home Alone, it's NOT A Christmas Story, its NOT Christmas Vacation or any of the other classics. Forever Forgettable.


I remember when this was in theaters, reviews said it was horrible. Well, I didn't think it was that bad. It was amusing and had a lot of tongue-in-cheek humor concerning families around holiday time.

Ben Affleck is a rich guy who needs to find a family for Christmas to please his girlfriend. He goes to visit the house he grew up in and strikes a deal to rent the family there for Christmas. I really liked the lawyer scene where they sign a contract. That was funny.

So, he makes silly requests of the family and even writes scripts for them to read. Of course, the family has a hot daughter for the love interest. And he learns that the holidays aren't so bad after all.

Also, the whole doo-dah act was funny, especially when they replaced the first one with a black guy, and the girlfriends's parents didn't even say anything about it. And the parts where doo-dah is hitting on his "supposed daughter." FINAL VERDICT: I thought it's worth checking out if you catch it on cable.


Surviving Christmas (2004) Ben Affleck, James Gandolfini, Christina Applegate, Catherine O' Hara, Josh Zuckerman, Bill Macy, Jennifer Morrison, Udo Kier, D: Mike Mitchell. Dumped by his girlfriend, a hotshot yuppie doesn't want to be left alone on Christmas so he decides to return to his boyhood home, imposing on the dysfunctional family that now lives there and bribes them to pose as his family. An obnoxious and one-dimensional performance by Affleck, who mainly acts with a flashy smile, makes his character come off as a mentally unbalanced creep, but Gandolfini and O' Hara breathe some life into this mess. Even for farce, its silliness is lumbering, not much makes sense from scene to scene, and its sentimental messages are as phony as Affleck's grin. 91 min., rated PG-13. * ½


So, I know that I voted 1 out of 10 but really this deserves no more than half of a star. I hated it. It was so stupid and unrealistic, I can't believe any of the stars signed on to make this ridiculously absurd project.

James G. and Cathrine O'Hara were excellent in their characters and Ben Affleck and Christina Applegate were just as good too, but the story sucked and I encourage anyone who sees this in the video store to not even bother picking it up and reading the back cover, but to just walk away...I don't even want to get into what the movie is about, because it is too stupid to pontificate about.

Don't rent this! It's horrible! Horrible!


May contain spoilers.

I say that, but anyone savvy enough to be reading this can probably figure out every plot turn right from the start.

This is not a movie that I liked. I didn't hate it in the way of some movies that insult your intelligence, but it all felt too predictable on its trudge to the requisite happy ending. There were funny bits along the way to be sure, but few were original. At least it didn't go for the gutter.

Christina Applegate looks fresh, and Ben Affleck works hard. Their scenes together are actually the only redeeming feature. Everyone else is a cardboard cutout, including, surprisingly, James Gandolfini, who must have made this as a favor to someone.

All in all, it's a harmless, but not inspiring, 90 minutes.


This movie is terrible. TERRIBLE. One of the worst movies ever. I cannot even imagine Gigli being worse that this. Previews made us say "NO", but then looking for something amid the dreck out there right now, we decided to go ahead and give it a shot.

STUPID US.

Affleck is NOT an actor. He's an image and can look good with explosions, but not even the kind Bruce Willis got in "Die Hard". If he stripped his shirt and ran around fighting bad guys, it would be a comedy.

The best part was Catherine O'Hara -- she's always good. Gandolfini flops again (if it weren't for The Sopranos, he'd be washed up) like he did in "The Mexican".

Affleck hogs every scene and as others have said -- no character has any motivation whatsoever for their actions.

AVOID THIS MOVIE AT ALL COSTS.


I went to see this film at the cinemas and i was shocked when I got in the room. There was only me and my girlfriend! This shouted to me that this film is not very good.

Not to my surprise, the film was dire. Ben Affleck plays a guy who buys a family for Christmas. It is a very predictable narrative with him falling in love with the girl that hates him. His acting is OKish but for the comedy aspect of the film he is not very good. The plot line is poor and the comedy almost non-existent.

However, there are some good points. For example, the family is falling apart and the mother is very funny.

I hope this review stops other people wasting their money. I was very embarrassed when I came out of the room!!!


Drew Latham(Ben Affleck)is determined not to be lonely this Christmas. Not only is Drew a millionaire; but also obnoxious and guilty of being very grandiose. Drew goes back to the home he grew up in and offers the family living there, the Valco's, $250,000 to be his "family" through the Christmas season. Tom Valco(James Gandolfini)is reluctant, but is greedy enough to take Drew's offer. Christine Valco(Catherine O'Hara)has little to say in the matter, but learns to like having Drew around...not exactly the same sentiment with daughter Alicia(Christina Applegate), but that too has room for change. Drew's girlfriend Missy(Jennifer Morrison)tracks down Drew and wants her folks to meet his family. Genuine fun is in store as a happy Noel becomes a hilarious dysfunctional nightmare. Other members of the cast: Josh Zuckerman, Bill Macy, David Selby and Stephanie Faracy. Affleck is comedic, albeit strange.


Not as bad as you've heard. There are actually some funny parts and Affleck and Applegate have fairly good chemistry. Applegate, in particular, is appealing and likable as Affleck's love interest. James Gandolfini and Catherine O'Hara are consummate professionals. They're pretty good in just about everything. In the end, "Surviving" is not the worst holiday movie you'll ever see.

Unfortunately, it is unfocused and much of the comedy is forced. The attempts at dark humor come off as dour. Affleck tries hard to be endearingly spastic and overenthusiastic but comes across as disturbed. His character's cartoonish nature is brought into high relief when viewed next to Gandolfini and O'Hara's more muted, believable performances. Even by the relaxed standards of holiday movies, you never fully buy into the set-up of Affleck "renting" this family for X-mas.

There are also scenes that border on the surreal in their strangeness. The X-mas eve scene replete with incestuous humor (a son being discovered looking at naked, provocative pictures of his mother) that not only isn't funny or believable but disturbing.

To make matters worse, the colors in this film are muddy, almost noirish. The house set on which most of the movie takes place looks stagey and cheap.

"Surviving" is mostly of interest as the fourth in a string of box office duds (Paycheck, Gigli, Jersey Girl, and this) for Affleck. It remains to be seen how lasting the damage will be.


I liked it, i really did. Please don't think that i'm an idiot but i have to admit that i enjoyed this film. I expected it to be crap, it was crap, but sometimes its OK to relax and watch a crappy film that you don't have to concentrate too much on isn't it? I didn't expect any hidden meanings or morales, and there wasn't any, but that doesn't matter because i only watched it for entertainment, and it did entertain me throughout. Films like this are why the Ben Stillers (excusing 'there's something about Mary') and the Vince Vaughns (however you spell his last name, i couldn't be bothered checking)have jobs. It's OK to watch a crap film as long as you don't expect too much from it, and i for one shall take a stand, jog, perhaps run, but not drive because i don't have a car, to Blockbuster Video, or even Choices, and rent a bunch of these toilet humoured films and stay in one night watching them. Good day to you reader. P.s if you do not say that this comment helped you then i don't like you, if you do say it helped then god bless you, you will go to heaven.


I have to admit I laughed a few times during this trivial 2004 holiday movie, but it's already moving out of my short-term memory. In a career that is sliding rather swiftly toward tabloid obscurity, Ben Affleck, once a promising comic character actor who became enmeshed in the Hollywood publicity machine to recreate himself into a romantic leading man. Judging from this film, the transformation doesn't seem to be taking, as he continues to lack the gravitas that would make him credible in such parts. While his buddy Matt Damon takes on smart roles in films like "Syriana", Affleck appears in this type of commercial pap. At least the superficial character of successful but lonely advertising executive Drew Latham suits Affleck better than most of the other roles he has tried.

Directed by Mike Mitchell (whose most famous film is 1999's "Deuce Bigelow: Male Gigolo") and scripted by no less than four screenwriters (always a bad sign), the flimsy plot revolves around his character's need to "rent" a family living in his childhood home in order to live out his fantasy of having the old-fashioned Christmas he never had. The concept is actually intriguing because there is something to be said about the cathartic release of sentimentality we are all directed to feel amid the frenzied commercialism around the holidays. The real problem, however, is that the movie feels like an extended sketch lacking any logic or authentic emotional resonance. Affleck seems to be on overdrive attempting desperately to be lovable, but the net result is an exhausting turn by an actor who has an increasingly annoying habit of playing stupid people in ill-conceived films. Fortunately, he has the likes of James Gandofini and Catherine O'Hara playing the Valcos, the couple who decide to accept Drew's monetary offer to pretend to be his parents.

Gandolfini plays Tom like a gruff, non-violent relative of Tony Soprano, but he does what he can in the role. From her classic SCTV Days to Christopher Guest's mockumentaries, O'Hara is always a comic gem no matter the vehicle, and unsurprisingly she earns the best laughs as Tom's wife Christine, whether dryly delivering a one-liner or posing in an inch of make-up for a dominatrix photo shoot. In what is becoming her standard screen role, Christina Applegate plays their mistrusting daughter Alicia, who of course becomes Drew's love interest. Despite some good moments where she is enjoying the deceit of playing Drew's sister in front of his girlfriend's family, her character seems to change in lightning-flash strokes making it hard to see what Drew would see in her. The story spins completely out of control by the last third with one contrived situation piled on top of another until plot strands are tied together in short order. It's rumored that much of the movie was improvised since there was no finished shooting script. It shows, but I also have to admit I stuck with it to the bitter end.


This thing is horrible. The Ben Affleck character is self-centered and gleefully sadistic--punch-you-in-the-nose fratboy sadistic. And he's the romantic HERO! His cartoonish character does not change from beginning to end, but his money ultimately allows him to buy happiness.

If I were a Socialist, I would screed beyond belief, but I'm not a Socialist.

We capitalists like a little Christmas magic from time to time. This ain't magic. I don't know what it is. It's just awful. And it's a horrible waste of talent. O'Hara has been making me laugh hysterically since the late '70s. Gandolfini. Applegate. These people were all underused. If Ben was out of the equation, these folks might have dreamed up something excellent.


This is quite possibly the worst Christmas film ever. The plot is virtually non-existent, the acting (Affleck in particular) is poor at best. Ben Affleck fans will probably defend this film but deep down they must agree. As far as I could gather the plot consisted of Ben Affleck, a millionaire salesman, is told by a shrink to go to a place that reminds him of his childhood and burn a list of things he wanted to forget from his childhood. On doing this he ends up paying the family currently living in the house to be his family for Christmas... and that is it. The film goes on and eventually he gets together with the daughter of the family.... blah blah blah.


James Gandolfini is a good actor so what ever did he take a role in this piece of unfunny rubbish. Affleck is just a lightweight who just can't cut it, the rest of the cast are truly unforgettable. I saw this in the USA in an empty theatre, I soon knew why the place was empty after about 10 minutes. I walked out before the end it was so bad, so imagine my surprise when back in England I saw the movie had a glowing report from that yoyo "Paul Ross" in one of the down market Sundays. I always rely on Ross to save me money on cinema tickets, if he says the movie is good, I get straight on this very website to check it out. This movie should have gone straight to £1.99 DVD in a supermarket near you.


this movie had more holes than a piece of swiss cheese. Ben Affleck was seriously NOT trying to act in any way, shape, or form. He outright sucked. Nothing about the movie was believable. The first problems were in the intro- where the man gives everything of value to the Salvation Army Santa Claus but it doesn't show why. And then the granny sticks her head in the oven- really beautiful, and has absolutely nothing to do with the movie- it's not even in the same tone as the movie. There was no explanation of the motivation for Ben Affleck to choose the house he chose; there was not any believable reactions by the family he chose; and people are swayed here and there without any cause to be swayed (Example: Christina Applegate and Ben Affleck's characters go tobogganing down a steep slope- this is the incident that makes her suddenly fall in love with him. Riiiight...) Anyway, there was a funny moment or two- but they were a rarity in the movie. It seriously needed another rewrite (or 4). Hope you enjoy!


As with most of Ben Affleck's movies, the comedy is dry and story is predictable. That is if you want to call this a story. Many points were left connected with no thought at all. I want to thank the director for not explaining the points better. I say that because, that would mean the torture would have lasted longer. As for any of Ben Affleck's failures, this one is no exception and is survivable only by the other actors. Even then, the acting for the most part was contrived and was not believable. The trip down memory lane with actors I have not seen in years was not worth the price of admission. All thought it should be told, they too are quickly joining the ranks of the "has-been". My choice was to wait for my car to be fixed or watch this movie. I made the wrong decision. All in all I would give it a one laugh ... mainly because that is all I got out of it.


While filming an 80's horror movie called 'Hot Blooded', the director is brutally murdered and the leading lady is scarred as she survives the attack and manages to kill murderer. After all of this, the production is abandoned and the stock reels are left to gather dust. So a group of filmmakers decide to pick up where the film left off even though they're warned by people to keep away from the film, as the last person who was interested in the flick turned up dead in the cinema while watching the film. From this it's labelled as a cursed production. Not taking these warnings seriously the crew goes ahead with the production and they get the original star of the movie to return from Hollywood to reprise her role, but not as the daughter but the mother. But again the murders start occurring with the cast and crew getting butchered by an unknown figure dressed up as the film's killer.

Look what 'Scream' started! Hey, I enjoy those films, but mostly everything else that followed on afterwards were annoying and pointless excuses. During this stage the sub-genre came back with vengeance, but it wasn't much of a good thing as they were mostly unsuccessful and unoriginal attempts, where they followed the derivative pattern of the Scream franchise. 'Cut' which is an independent Australian take on the textbook slasher genre is purely shonky garbage that lacks basically everything and shamelessly knocks off every other slasher flick. But you know what, I found it a cheesy delight. Yeah, It's gawd awful and highly forgettable, but it's a bit of ala good cheap fun while it lasted. Although I did hate it when I originally came across it, but the second time around I knew what I was getting myself into and it worked better for it. It was just like helping myself to a nice slice cheesecake again, but this time it wasn't so sweet.

The film came out around the same time as 'Scream 3' and 'Urban Legends: The Final Cut' did, which all three follow the same structure of using a movie within a movie. 'Scream 3' is obviously the strongest of the three, but I would actually watch this trash over Urban Legends: The Final Cut. Though, it did seem more of a throwback to the 80's slashers than that of one of Scream's bastard offspring. Pretty much the film is given b-grade treatment and that shows up in the script and performances. The dialog is truly unimaginative and hardly comes up with any surprises and suspense. While, the performances are pure mockery and Molly Ringwald takes the crown for it. She plays the wash-up actress returning to finish the cursed flick and I had good fun with her laughably ridiculous send-up performance. She provides the bite here and nails it down perfectly. The rest were mostly recognizable Australian TV stars (that's if you're an Australian) with a ravishing Jessica Napier leading the cast with the likes of Stephen Curry and Frank Roberts. Also pop singer (and supposed actress) Kylie Minogue makes a cameo appearance in the opening just to be hacked up! Nice. These teens mostly followed the formula of horny and dim-witted kids that have nothing better to do but to be killed. Sometimes it feels like they just waiting in queue, because they have no real substance to be there.

The plot starts off rather interestingly, then heads into a mystery phase where red herrings pop up, but then it makes a sudden u-turn where it becomes a somewhat satire on the horror genre. Simply it's rather choppy and when it comes to the explanation for all of this madness I was kind of left thinking oh my. This when it tries to twist back onto itself in a clever manner, but sadly it falls along way. But don't you just love an opening ending. Also it sports some pop culture references and a self referential, tongue-in-cheek approach. Predictability makes its way in rather early and the jokes can become over-stated at times, but it knows that by poking fun at itself quite a bit. The atmosphere looses a bit of edge because of the humour taking away the bleakness, but still the isolated grand old mansion where they are filming has some neat touches that added 'some' spookiness. The cinema scene is done rather nicely too.

Now, now we know we want gore and nudity when watching this type of flick, but sadly there's no nudity to be found and the gore is pretty standard, if lacking but it's more then decent for such low-budget flick. There are one or two creative deaths, but the rest are systematic. The killer wasn't bad but when he spoke it kind of hurt it I thought, well the smart-ass attitude didn't sit well with me. Another notes of the production which were dire ranged from the cut-away editing, out-of-place soundtrack and Kimble Rendall's direction lacked execution and was pretty careless, but these contributing factors pull together to add some sort of sheer entertainment to all of this badness.

The imagination matches the budget that's for sure, but heck this lousy slasher wasn't trying to be anything else. Pure schlock that's slightly amusing!


A student filmmaker enlists a B-grade actress (a delectably diva-ish MOLLY RINGWALD!) to complete the horror film that her mother (a dreadfully dull Kylie Minogue!) tried to make 12 years ago. It's a curious plot choice to say the least, as any Aussie horror fan knows that the genre is sadly lacking in women directors. The film has a curse on it, because Molly had to kill some psycho murderer on the original set. But she's back, because she needs the exposure. Unfortunately, the curse is still there and people start dying on the "set." Cut is an Aussie attempt at the modern "slasher," but unfortunately it doesn't bring anything new or exciting to the table. In fact, it rips half of Wes Craven's 90s filmography. Lots of film-world name-dropping a la "Scream" (except it's Aussie name-dropping--Jane Campion...see how this isn't as funny) and lots of "is this real or is this a movie" a la "New Nightmare." The editing is bad, the music is annoying, the effects are laughable, almost everything is bad about this. Fortunately, the film can have a sense of humor: at one point, a well-dressed girl in the movie crew says to the owner of the house they are filming at: "Don't worry, we'll treat your house as if it were our own," to which he responds, "that doesn't mean anything to me, you look like you live in a dump!" Ha! And Molly's ridiculous one-liners were enough to not regret renting this one. "You got any diet coke in here?" (as she rides in the film professor's car) and "Does anyone know where I can buy any tofu?" (the first thing she mutters on the set) and "Where the hell is my agent?" (oh wait, that's what I was thinking for her.)


The cover of box of this movie has Kyle Minogue's name on it, but she has the same destiny as Drew Barrymore did in "Scream." That's the first thing that makes this movie lame; they are trying to market a movie with someone that's in it for 5 minutes.

Of course, we have to have this movie feature young hip college kids that are oblivious that there's a killer going around. To top it all off, Molly Ringwald of 80's teen movie fame is the star of this beautifully written film. It's a good career move for Molly to get some money doing a crappy movie in Australia so she won't get ridiculed in the states.

Either way, this dumb movie is about some dumb horror movie that was never finished because this dumb creature kills everyone that's in it. Throughout the movie, we're supposed to guess who's the killer. Long story short, remember our little friend Molly, she saves the day...or does she?

This move is just plain bad, rent it if you feel like torturing yourself or just break it on the floor of your local video store if you see it on the shelf. Don't spread the horror.


A slasher flick, made in the early 80's, has a curse on it which has anyone who tries to finish it turning up dead. Years later, a group of film students attempted to complete the movie - also resurrecting the films deadly curse. Great idea for a film, but sadly 'Cut' is just another wasted opportunity.

Unfortunately Australia hasn't had the world's best track record when it comes to horror. 'Razorback' (1984) was an out and out dud as was 'Holwing III' (1987), which was half an American film anyway. As for our foray into comedy-horror, 'Body Melt' (1993) is best left forgotten. The problem with 'Cut' is that the makers trying to create a clever horror satire a la 'Scream' (1996) but have no insight into the genre or what makes it work. And although this sounds weird me saying this about a slasher film but what 'Cut' really lacks is any "heart". Sure it follows the basic "rules" established by 'Scream', but it doesn't want to play with the formula, instead it goes for a cardboard copy of the earlier.

The killer, Scarman, is probably one of the most boring and uncharismatic villains in horror movie history. His endless barrage awkwardly, lame one-liners would make the dialogue of a porno seem like Shakespeare. The cast never seem like their fully involved and look like their just waiting for a shoot to be over so they can collect their pay checks. And the feel of the film is like it's deliberately trying not to be creepy; looking more like an episode of 'Neighbors' or 'Heartbreak High'. By the way, those attempts at MTV style, hyper-cinema during the "research" sequence just look lame, dated and out of place.

If Australia ever gets a chance to do horror again (Which I hope we still do) maybe we should take a leaf from the 'Mad Max' (1979) book. Instead of trying to copy the U.S. we should be trying our own take on the genre.


Rip off of "Scream" or especially "I know what you did last summer", there's some entertainment here, and a little scary, but they needed some originality.

An entertainment score? 6.5/10 Overall? 5.5/10


It seems that several of the people who have reviewed this movie only watched it in the first place because it was filmed near where they live. How's that for a ringing endorsement? If this movie was filmed near where I lived I wouldn't be mentioning it in my review. It is horrid! Several reviews state that this film is a spoof or tongue-in-cheek horror movie, it is neither. It is sad to see this film reviewed as a comedy as that makes it not only a bad attempt at a horror film but as a comedy as well. I did laugh though, at how unbelievably bad the film was.

This movie has 2 good things going for it, the mask and the weapon of choice, unfortunately it would have been more interesting watching an hour and a half of the mask and weapon laying on a table then watching this garbage. The social commentary behind the film is also laughable, juvenile and stupid. Don't bother with this movie, you've already wasted time reading this review don't waste anymore on this movie. Arrggghhh! It's infuriating that movies like this even get made. I was expecting the entire cast a crew to be credited to Alan Smithee, a name used when a person, usually a director, doesn't want to be credited with a movie because it's so bad.

There is nothing redeeming in this movie, I spent $1.19 on the rental and feel I was ripped off. Avoid. 1 out of 10


I saw this movie the other night and I have to honestly say it's one of the worst films I've ever seen. The acting is fair, but the plot is totally ridiculous. A killer is born because of all the "energy used to make the movie" and if the film is burned the killer will die? How unbelievable is that? The characters were underdeveloped to say the least...for example, all of a sudden the man mentions "Aren't you trying to complete the film because your mother couldn't?" So we're supposed to go along with this? We had no idea it was her daughter until half way through the film. The movie really didn't spotlight on anyone, we didn't know anything about the main people who survived except Ringwald's character was a whiney actress, the guy was on the set when the people died and Raffy wanted to be a director like her mother. Not truly diving in to know who they are. Seemed things were rushed to just get to the killings. The whole plot is entirely too weak for my taste and I was extremely disappointed. Anyone who enjoyed this piece of crap, obviously needs to learn a thing or two about film making. I can't believe anyone would agree to star or even work on this picture. It's not funny, it was not scary and was cliche through the entire film. I found myself predicting what would happen before each scene, which believe you me wasn't hard at all to do. It's a disgrace and I'm deeply sorry I wasted an hour and a half watching the mess. 1/10.


Slash flicks come few and far between now a days, so when I heard about Cut I had high hopes and heard good things about it. Those good things I heard were all wrong..very wrong! This flick is bad and I mean BAD. It's just plain stupid. Everything about it. Especially the killer's origin and how he stays alive and how he is taken care of in the end. There is nothing original or outstanding about this flick. Just another slasher wannabe with those "Hip," "Self aware." "Movie savvy" characters. I'm so sick of that crap. Someone do something different cause the slash genre needs new blood, literally.


Slasher films are often seen as the derivative, repetitive and frankly unoriginal. I happen to to be a horror movie fan, but this film was just so poor, words fail me. The script is severely lacking, the plot is ridiculous, the acting astoundingly bad. Just an all round stinker, that I wasted time of my life on. This had all the entertainment value of a 15th sequel to a film that was dire in the first place.

Who greenlit this mess?

I only liked two things in this movie. The first was the killer's mask - which was nice. The second was the Austrailian affinity with humourous profanity.

Save yourself, and avoid this hideous mess.


Oh man, does this movie ever bite! If you were ever afraid of seeing a rehash of the slasher genre, done as cheap as possible and as cautious at the same time (pc-friendly, means no nudity, a classic element of slasher films) Cut is it. Every cliche is retread without a hint of self-awareness and the acting. Oh, the acting redefines the word horror. I should have known better as the direct Dutch translation of the title would have tipped me off.


"Cut" is a film about some film students making a film. It's very much in the "Scream" mold, an ironic, self-referential horror flick which, for me at least, falls down because for all its irony, it's still just a bad horror film, same as the films its referring to.

But it was not without its charms. Well, one charm anyway. Molly Ringwald was fantastic as the spoilt, bitchy American actress hating every minute of working with the amateur Australian film crew. She was so convincing that its tempting to believe it wasn't an act, although everyone involved with "Cut" says she was lovely to work with. :-)

Seriously, every scene of her pouting, sulking or snapping was great. Everyone else, however, wavered between being OK and being terribly wooden.

Anyway, "Cut" has some laughs, a few buckets of gore (some of it surprisingly gruesome), and ultimately is.. just another bad horror film.


Normally I'm not motivated to write reviews. But this movie was so excruciatingly painful I feel I must. I cringed at the appallingly predictable plot, the lame acting and laughed at moments which were supposed to be tense. Indeed most of the audience seemed pretty bored and chatty even at the "most tense" moment of the movie. Molly Ringwald stood out as the only performance of any merit in a tortured production. Even the "twist" at the end wasn't. I've heard it said that the movie didn't take itself seriously; but I could find little evidence of that in the movie.

Cut should have been left on the cutting room floor. Do yourself a favour and spend your time and money on something else!


This film was made and cast from my home town. I remember the fuss about it and the whole hullabaloo about the fact Molly Ringwald was in town...

Storyline...

Essentially 20 years after a film was "laid to rest" without being finished, a group of film students set out to complete it - with dire consequences. It would seem someone does not want the film completed.

The storyline is flimsy. One has to remember that this is a comedy and therefore has to be taken a little tounge in cheek, but it had no real oomph. The characters are mostly transperant and the little info that you recieve about them you just don't care about, it seems irrelevant. It is weird hearing Kylie's accent as Australian again and nice to see a kid I went to school with in a starring role. But that doesn't redeem the film at all. Goodness knows why the makers thought they would get in Molly Ringwald. Perhaps due to the nature of the film (it sort of pays homage to 80s films / bad horror films)but really an Aussie actor would have done just fine.

As far as casting is concerned a lot of the acting seemed constipated. Some of these kids (especially the two main chics - they played "director" and "producer") looked like they were trying to act. That is never a good look. Also, the shots had a rough feel about them. Over lit perhaps? Just not as smooth as one is used to.

The killer. Lord. Could it be less frightening? There are some shock factors though, and a couple of gross scenes. I did like the film, but it was not great. It went for 90 minutes but could have gone for less. Perhaps if they had tightened the script it would have been better. They had a lot of characters get killed - but no real build up to them getting slayed. Maybe if they had killed less people and actually concentrated on a scary atmosphere it would have been better.

Now I know it is a comedy and elements were funny. Or so unbelieveable they were funny. But I am not convinced.

LM.


Everyone in this movie tells Raffy Carruthers how talented she is, what a great director she'll one day turn out to be, etc. I think they're just being nice. Even Kimble Rendall, who directed this film, shows more talent than she does. "The next Jane Campion", they call her; and, even apart from the fact that they're both over-rated, the two have SO much in common. They both direct movies. They're both women. They're both Australian. (Well, give or take.)

Yep: it's one of those films in which a character is deemed to be brilliant, and we just have to swallow hard and accept it. But I'll say this for Carruthers: she's cute. -And fascinating. No, really. Here are some thoughts on her lack of talent:

(1) Part of a director's talent lies in dealing with people. Why is Carruthers so phenomenally bad at getting her crew to even take notice of her? So as to make it easier for everyone to wander off the set and get killed, I expect.

(2) Why is this one of the most unconvincing depictions of a movie set I have ever seen? After all, it must have been filmed on a REAL movie set. How could they get it wrong? If Rendall's set was half as much of an under-staffed shambles it's a wonder he completed his film at all.

(3) Carruthers - the fictional director - has set herself the task of creating a brand new 1980s horror flick. Fat chance. I doubt it can be done these days. I suspect that Rendall - the actual, and more talented, director - set himself the same task, realised it couldn't be done, and settled for (sigh) knowing parody instead. Of course, it's not ENOUGH of a parody to work as a parody. As soon as the cast and crew set foot in the isolated mansion the film just spends most of its time doing badly what 1980s horror films did ... well, less badly.

(4) And yet, and yet ... the film opens with not a parody but an honest-to-goodness pastiche of 80s horror, starring (this is too good to be true) Molly Ringwald. This pastiche is much better than anything that follows. (It's a bad sign when you find yourself wishing you were watching the movie-within-the-movie, rather than the movie.) Yet it, too, was filmed in the late 1990s. Perhaps it IS still possible to make 1980s horror. You just have to drop the knowing parody stuff and MEAN it.

(5) I'd never once wondered what 1980s teen horror would be like if all the characters had Australian accents, but now I know. And strangely, I'm glad I know. A need I never knew I had has been fulfilled.


I had not seen the movie trailer when I went to see the movie, instead I based my judgments on a friend's opinions. Now I like Chris Rock and his comedy, but this movie just falls flat on its face.

During the movie Rock delivers a couple of funny jokes, but unfortunately the movie is sorely lacking in comedy. The movie seems want to integrate both laughter and love into one, and it that endeavor it fails. The love story in the movie is straight forward (luckily), but it detracts too much from the movie by making Rock serious and bland. After all, the movie is first and foremost destined to be a comedy, where laughter should be the primary concern. Not much of that in the movie.

The plot is also pretty uninteresting as a whole. Some parts were discontinuous altogether. If the supporting cast were meant to be funny, they certainly didn't do a good job. The couple of angels from heaven tried to make a couple of jokes, which were dry and dull. Rock's first incarnation's couple of underlings were also bland. If there's one thing they did do right, though, they made Rock seem funnier by comparison.


The king is dead long live the King! The triad of Caddie Shack Two, The Family underneath the Stairs, and Troop Beverly Hills had been tied for worst movie ever for so long that they seemed icons in their own right. But there is a new king.....yep.....all hail the new king...."Down to Earth". But some things, like Tiny Tim for example, are so bad they are good. Some day this could take out the inimitable "Rocky Horror Picture Show" as a cult film. So go see this ....this....well just take my word for it. Go see it. All hail the new king!


First off, I would like to say that I am a fan of Chris Rock. I like his other movies, but this movie is just like my summary. The Biggest Sack of Crap ever. In the beginning, Chris Rock plays an aspiring comedian who get stage fright at a Comedy Building called the Apollo. On his way home from a gig, while riding his BIKE he sees this woman he likes and is hit by a Truck. A little while later, he chooses the body of an old, white, and selfish millionaire. Then, he dresses up like the music group Outkast while trying to replay the scene from the original where he comes out as a Jockey. Second, he goes back to the Apollo, and tries to be the comedian he tried to be in his previous body and starts dissing the white population and tries to be black. Do you get my drift? This movie is awful it tries too hard to be like the original and in the process comes out looking like a sack of crap. Just take my advice, don't even watch this movie.


Down to Earth is about Lance Barton, a black comedian who gets hit by a truck. He goes to Heaven and he gets to get another body. Lance gets the body of Charles Wellington, a white guy. So Lance does a few things in the body of Charles. The movie has a few laughs, but it's nothing special. It's a good movie if you're a fan of Chris Rock. Madagascar, the 2005 animated comedy, is better. This is a good movie, but Chris Rock has done way better things than this. It will only make you laugh about 4 times the whole movie. And it's not really laugh-out-loud funny. You'll laugh to yourself and you might giggle, but you definitely won't be rolling on the floor laughing.


This is probably the worst movie I have ever seen, (yes it's even worse than Dungeons and Dragons and any film starring Kevin Costner.)

Chris Rock looked very uncomfortable throughout this whole film, and his supporting actors didn't even look like they were trying to act. Chris Rock is a wonderful stand-up comedian, but he just can't transfer his talent to this film, which probably only has two strained laughs in the whole picture.

If you haven't watched this film yet, avoid it like the plague. Go do something constructive and more interesting like watching the weather channel or watching paint dry on a brick wall.

For Chris' efforts I give it a 2/10!


I figured the whole joke of the movie would be to see some rich white guy acting like Chris Rock, and then see Chris Rock react to people's reactions. Instead you just see Chris Rock being himself and people not understanding him. There are maybe 2 scenes in the entire movie where they use their gimmick. This should have been a lot better.


I like Chris Rock, but I feel he is wasted in this film. The idea of remaking Heaven Can Wait is fine, but the filmmakers followed the plot of that turkey too closely. When Eddie Murphy remade Dr. Doolittle and The Nutty Professor, he re-did them totally -- so they became Murphy films/vehicles, not just tepid remakes. That's why they were successful. If Chris had done the same, this could have been a much better film. The few laughs that come are when he is doing his standup routine -- so he might as well have done a concert film. It also would have been much funnier if the white man whose body he inhabits was a truck driver or hillbilly. So why does Hollywood keep making junk like this? Because people go to see it -- because they like Chris Rock. So give Chris a decent script and give us better movies! Don't remake films that weren't that good in the first place!


I did not expect much from this film, but boy-o-boy, I did not expect the movie to be this bad. Chris Rock is not showing a good act here, you can't get the feeling that his caracter is real, I think the movie would have been a bit better if it's drama or romantic scenes would have been a less part of the movie and more/better humor was involved. The movie is like the film makers were having a bad hangover making it. In the "making of" they don't show a single smile. This is a very bad film! I gave it three out of ten because of few smiles it gave me, but I did never laugh!


irritating, illogical flow of events. pretty much every joke is so simple that it can hardly be regarded as one. no wonder the cinema was empty and people actually walked away, yes away. I stayed, since I was enjoying a wonderful ice-cream with nuts during the whole movie.


I was in physical pain watching the eyes of the cast as they participated in this sham. Bad dialogue, worse (worst) acting, lifeless all the way, and the cast knew it. The two preceding movies which this attempted to copy had life, sparkle, and were captivating.


because that is the only way you won't think this film is a TOTAL waste of time and money. A remake of "Heaven Can Wait", (which was at least worth watching) is a poor excuse for a romantic comedy. It is more a vehicle to give Rock some time on film for weak stand up comedy which doesn't play well on the big screen. Especially because his jokes generally are supposed to be from the body of an old, fat, rich, dead man but are shown coming from Rock himself. As he insults Blacks and Whites the chemistry is all wrong. The movie is not funny, poorly shot the acting is weak at best. Go rent "Heaven Can Wait" and a live Rock video and you'll be way ahead of the game.


One would expect a movie with a famous comedian in the lead role, to be a funny movie. This is not the case here. I laughed out loud once throughout the whole movie, and that wasn't even during the final comedy-scene (which one would also expect to be the funniest). This is one you can watch when it comes to TV, don't spend any other money renting it.


No need to detail what others have written in other reviews - here goes the summary:

* Much of the nested animation work is downright gorgeous - the colors are superb - would love to have it done in silk as a necktie

* The story and execution is a total snooze - it was quite difficult to stay awake at times

If you are a student of the fine arts, medieval calligraphy, early religion and so forth - have at it. This is a FILM for you.

If you want an engaging, entertaining MOVIE - look elsewhere - this is a failure as anything other than an artistic statement.

Vikings didn't have horns by the way...


There are moments in this unique cartoon of pure beauty but overall it's not very good. Limited animation as well as sub standard character and background design will limit its mass market appeal. The character design looks like a cross between the original Star Wars Clone Wars and Disney's Kim Possible, (Brendan, the main character in this also bares an uncanny similarity to Ron Stoppable in Kim Possible) Background design ranges as far and wide as going from being bland and depressing to stylish and stark, yet by today's standards, overall it is still poor and cheap looking. Many of the backgrounds bare resemblances to eastern European or Nordic animation from the mid 80's, nice in its own way but for modern child audiences, used to CG slug fests and talking dogs with every piece of fur on their body swaying in the wind, is sure to disappoint. The story is also not overly engaging and many of the voice actors aren't overly impressive, noticeably the usually brilliant Brendan Gleeson who appears to be phoning in his part. There are also a few secondary characters who come across as slightly cliché and stereotypically racist. However, some of the characters are good, the Viking villains, although underused are well done and are specifically foreboding in both look and sound. There is one moment involving the main character and his mentor being saved by Wolves from a Viking attack that is very nicely put together. The look and feel also seemed to be very inspired by the film Watership Down including a blatant rip off/homage to the Ghost Rabbit of Inlay. The look is also clearly and obviously inspired by Gaelic/Celtic/Anglo Saxon art so if you are into these subjects you may be drawn towards its look. The film also does have moments of very nicely structured shots leading the eye in a very artistic manner, including a pretty match cut and a large scale Viking attack that is very moody and impressive. Best of all though is the music, much of the background music is melodic and moving, specifically the song by the spirit girl which is truly beautiful and haunting and works very well with the images it covers. If the whole film was as poetic as this moment, (and it tries,) then this would be a very beautiful and poetic film that would sadly still not reach a wide audience, but instead it isn't a shame it wont reach a wider audience because most of it is average and cheap looking and doesn't stand up to modern animation standards. Overall a film that clearly split my opinion in many ways, but all together not great but worth watching for the music and song and the occasional pretty or scary moment. Oh yeah and the cat seemed to live for a long time, not sure how that was possible.


Normally I would have given this movie a 6. It tackles a very important topic and it does it relatively well - despite Katie Wright which is an accomplishment in and of itself.

I have no idea if she was actually instructed to play the character like this or is naturally irritating, but she did an awesome job at making it impossible for me to care for Lexi. There's no dimension to her other than how confused, helpless and clueless she is, and how good she is at whimpering. I can understand how a young girl who blames herself for the loss of her friend and whose eating disorder has spiraled out of control would be distraught, scared and in pain. However, Wright's entire performance is based on incessant wailing and sniveling, the rest being whining. I couldn't help but feel this particular girl's problem was caused not by the demon that is Bulimia, but by her not having a backbone. I very much doubt that's the point the movie meant to make.


Not the best of actors' movies.The director has concentrated on projected actor's stardom rather than giving a good entertainer. May be hero himself, his family and his sincere fans can enjoy it.But definitely it's not worth for neutral audience.The fight sequences are a total comedy.The dance moves in the song sequences are pathetic. The music is average.This film was the biggest flop for the actor. Inspite of the hype created over the movie, the movie failed miserably. Don't even think of watching this move even if you want to kill time. You can watch some cartoon instead.A good movie buff cannot digest this crap for 2 1/2 hours.


This is without doubt Rajnikanth's worst movies ever. The first part is held in place with solid comedy from Goundamani but it progressively gets worse and worse and completely illogical. Our hero also takes a dig at Saints with the same name (Baba) through a corny and utterly lame one-liner. The first half has Rajni uttering his usual array of oneliners and style and in the second half, becomes a quasi saint after a beggar takes him through a interdimensional portal to the Himalayas where Babaji (not the famous Saints he took a dig at earlier) gives him special powers for no apparent reason (other than karma). This is really starting to get interesting now isn't it?

The rest of the movie is about him wasting his magic boons and powers and fighting off politicians and related black magic. The usual predictable crap with hilarious implementation. Oh and the black magic never worked on our hero because he just happened to have a Param Vir...er....Shakti Chakra with him. The bad guys and the usual politician villains are clichéd, overworked and in the end, completely insignificant to the plot which itself doesn't go anywhere.

But despite all the flaws, it was fun to kill time with and yell Baba related one-liners during public events. Its also fun to watch others curse about this movie. AR Rehman is said to have composed the tracks for his movie through the cell phone. Thats how important he considered it.

Rajni is very popular in Japan and he has included two characters (one of them is called Keiko...why not Samsung?) of Japanese origin in this movie just for the sake of it. But the way they are portrayed, dressed and treated is absolutely pathetic. The Japanese may stop watching Rajni movies after seeing that. This movie was probably promotional material for Rajni entering politics but the results of the movie itself would have killed off any of his political dreams.

Fun if you turn your brain off though.