We have all been asking ourselves "why don't they remake the slasher films that were only OK instead of remaking the ones that were great already, that way they can only make it better?" well with Prom Night they have remade the average but trashy fun 80s Jamie Lee Curtis film and made it even WORSE. Its a paint by numbers slasher film which is clearly trying to attract the young teens (hence no violence etc), the knife in this slasher flick is blunt.The director spends so much time focusing on trying to make the rather attractive killer look somewhat creepy that anything else goes out of the window.The cast who include Britney Snow (who was superb in Hairspray) try their hardest but the material gives them nothing to do but pout and look scared.More annoying is how the death scenes are handled (we will hear the attack but wont see it). It also looks like the only place the knife in this film worked was in the editing suite since the film looks like it has been butchered (im guessing anything remotely scary ended up on the cutting room floor so as not to scare the kids) Yet in pours the money from Americans sending this film to number 1 at the box office!!! Slasher movies are a lot of fun but in Prom Nights case it made me want to download the original.I've seen scarier OC and Dawsons Creek episodes


I'm a big fan of the TV series Largo Winch. This movie was pain for me. I had to use fast forward not to fell to sleep. It was boring! How can somebody ruin this title so much? The story was the only good thing. Actors were sh.t. They can't live the role. The main actor(Tom ... ) is a null. Watch the other roles of this actor. The fighting scenes were unbelievable boring and not to followable,somehow they were not to follow the situation. Like other reviewer said low budget film with bad actors.Maybe next time somebody else can do better thing out of this title. French can't do right thing with big films,like Alien 4. That was bit brrr, after Alien 1,2,3.


First of all, if you'r a fan of the comic, well, you'll be VERY disappointed I'm sure ! Low budget movie !!! Largo is supposed to be Serbian in the comic, now suddenly he becomes croatian, pfff! chicken producers, it gave some spice and guts to the comic ( By the way, in the film, his father speaks Serbian and he speaks croatian... Lol ). The striking N.Y. Winch building becomes a common average-small yacht in H.K. The good looking Largo becomes some unshaved Tzigan/Turkish looking guy. Freddy the cool 'scarface' pilot becomes some fat, out of shape, sad, average guy. Simon, Largo's good buddy, does not exist at all !? He gave some pepper ! Largo doesn't throw knifes at all, but just some snake stares... The whole story is confused and looks like a pretentious TV-film. French directors and producers, if you don't have the money, the ability or the technology to adapt correctly the comic, please stick to some romance shooted in Paris. Very very bad film, good thing I just rented it, don't count on me to watch the sequel ( If there is any ! ).


In my knowledge, Largo winch was a famous Belgium comics (never read) telling the adventures of a playboy, a sort of James Bond without the spy life! So, when I had to choose a movie for a 5 years-old kid, I picked it up because the kid was already a great fan of James Bond!

But, just after the opening credits, I got heavy doubts: when American movies offer amazing start, here, no action and a torrid sex scene  Then, the story get very complicated with financial moves I thought I lost the kid.

But, strangely, he had been caught by Largo, and more than James Bond!

Was it the excellent interpretation of Tomer Sisley? The difficult relationship Largo has with his father? The multiple box story in which the friends are the bad guys, the bad guys are the friends? The exotic locations of Honk-Kong, Yougoslavia?

Dunno, but he really cares about Largo ("Will he get up?) and we enjoyed our moment.


Chilly, alienating adaptation of Rebecca West's book about an Army Captain returning from duty in WWII with his memory impaired (now there's an original idea!). It seems he remembers old flame Glenda Jackson but not current wife Julie Christie, which should be enough to set off some emotional sparks. This extremely well-cast soaper brings together leading man Alan Bates with director Alan Bridges and co-stars Jackson, Christie, Ann-Margret, and Ian Holm, but the burners are all on low. There are a handful of good scenes (particularly whenever Jackson is on-screen), but Bridges' pacing is unrelievedly sluggish and the film's dulled-out color is enervating. Long on the shelf, this "Soldier" is best left forgotten. *1/2 from ****


but "Cinderella" gets my vote, not only for the worst of Disney's princess movies, but for the worst movie the company made during Walt's lifetime. The music is genuinely pretty, and the story deserves to be called "classic." What fails in this movie are the characters, particularly the title character, who could only be called "the heroine" in the loosest sense of the term.

After a brief prologue, the audience is introduced to Cinderella. She is waking up in the morning and singing "A Dream is A wish Your Heart Makes." This establishes her as an idealist (and thus deserving of our sympathy). Unfortunately, the script gives us no clue as to what she is dreaming about. Freedom from her servant role? The respect of her step-family? Someone to talk to besides mice and birds? In one song (cut from the movie but presented in the special features section of the latest DVD) Cinderella relates her wish that there could be many of her so she could do her work more efficiently. You go girlfriend! In short, Cinderella is a very bland character. She passively accepts her step-family's abuse, escaping into her unspoken dreams for relief. She only asserts herself once by reminding her stepmother that she is still a member of the family. For this, she is given permission to go the ball if she completes her housework and finds something to wear, a token gesture that is clearly absurd to everyone except, of course, Cinderella. Can anyone see Belle or Jasmine being such a doormat? If Cinderella is dull, her male counterpart is nothing short of lifeless. The Prince in Cinderella gets no dialog and almost no screen time. We are given no indication if he is a good man, if he respects Cinderella or anything. All we know is 1) he is a prince and 2) he dances well. Heck, even the prince from "Snow White" got to sing a romantic song at least. Not only does this lack of development make the romance less interesting, it makes Cinderella look like either a social climber or an idiot, weakening her already tenuous appeal.

Perhaps realizing how dull the main characters were, the animators chose to give excessive screen time to the movie's comic relief, Cinderella's friends, the mice. Granted, these characters are amusing. Even so, when the comic relief steals the show from the principals, well, let's just say your story has some problems.

Dinsey loves to proclaim all its animated features as "masterpieces." While many of them are, there are some that do not deserve this appellate in any way. Cinderella is a prime example of this fact.


Just saw it yesterday in the Sao Paulo Intl Film Festival. Just before going I came here to see how it was rated, and at that time it was 7.4, a pretty nice rate...

After 15 minutes I was dying to get out (never did this), but felt embarrassed to do so as the producer of the movie was in the screening.

I did not like at all, the dialogs are shallow and lead nowhere, the characters are shallower than the dialogs, nothing lead anywhere, and the worst and worst: plenty of Siemens and Organics advertising on the movie. Despite the fact that I already paid to go to the movie and entertain myself, I still have to be bombarded by the main character chatting on the internet and Siemens mobile popping-up all the time on her lap-top; or another character having a bath or cutting her hair just to have Organics shampoo displayed enormously on the screen! All of this would be bearable if the plot, characters, romances, anything was good, but was bad, really bad! A "don't know how to do" sex-in-the-city.

Don't waste your time or money.


When I bought this DVD I though: "It seems to be a nice light comedy about love and relationships made up in Portuguese standards let's give it a chance" I was TOTALLY WRONG! What a disappointing movie! First, it's not a comedy; it's a cheap drama which can be so melodramatic that it's even worse than many Portuguese soap operas! Second, the plot is so boring, and leads nowhere It has no structure, it just flows, like the wind, in one or another direction The production is also bad! The sound mixing is horrible, because sometimes the voices are disconnected. It made me remind some old Portuguese movies from the 80's The acting should have been better too Well, to sum up, it's not with films like this one that Portuguese cinema will improve! In fact, it was one of the worst Portuguese movies I have seen in the last years! Bad argument, bad acting, bad production I had no high hopes for this movie, but it was much worse than I've ever imagined! Just forget about it!


(I'll indicate in this review the point where spoilers begin.) My dissatisfaction is split: 30% tone-deafness, 70% lackluster writing.

The 30%: I agree with the first commenter's synopsis about the lack of diversity in the characters and scope of the stories. I was surprised how, this film, at best, woefully shortchanges the real NYC by presenting a collection of people and relationships so narrow as to come across as if it's inhabited only by the cast of Gossip Girl (this is coming from someone who likes Gossip Girl). A few minority characters are written into the stories, but they are included by obligation, while we can see the gears under the film so clearly, striving to "be diverse" but falling ever-so-short.

The 70% is why everything falls short. All characters, white plus a few token minorities, are one-dimensional, cardboard cutouts of people concepts. Worse, their interactions with each other are scripted in such a way that for each vignette in the film the audience is treated to what I'd say is a "gag": we get a basic conceit, then some punchline intended to be a clever twist. But even if we suspended cynicism for a moment to say, "Okay, that was a surprise"...the stories are still not that interesting, because they, too, are shallow. When you fashion stories so that their existence hinges solely on the unexpectedness of the ending, you're writing jokes.

Spoilers below...

The movie primarily tries to tell romantic stories. That's fine. But romance is amazing, deep, sometimes complex. These "romantic" stories each feature a girl and a boy who at some point share the same location and get to look at each other. Words exchange, thoughts are projected through voice-over, but they too only manage to communicate to the audience merely that one person is attracted to another.

Meaning, there is no seduction (in the broad sense), no tension, and neither confrontation nor communion between the wills of two different people trying to reconcile their existence to accommodate the Other. The only story involving a superficial "seduction" is told just so the audience ends up being surprised that the guy (Ethan Hawke) gets outwitted by the girl he's hitting on, who unexpectedly turns out to be a hooker. Sure, his words when trying to pick her up are interesting to hear and we are amused as we'd be if we were next to them, but there is nothing of substance to this story outside of "A then B". So it unfolds, if something like a postcard could "unfold", with all the other tales as well: A then B--That's It, the only point being that these happen to occur "on set" in Manhattan. By the way, the only Brooklyn we see is the Coney Island sketch; the only Queens is the flickering of a train ride taken by a character traveling to the West Village.

It's easy to pick at movies that play into all the common stereotypes of race, gender, sexual orientation, and so on. _New York, I Love You_, however, deserves to be held to stricter scrutiny because of its title. We expect to see the real New York, and real New Yorkers, but instead we have paraded before us the selected slice of a demographic, its characters flown in from The O.C., plus a few others to make it SEEM as if we are paying attention to diversity. But when we look closer at who those characters are, the whole sham becomes an affront to the very notion of diversity and the ethnicities and cultures the movie shamefully fails to represent.

For example, the story with the Latino man with the little white girl in the park, who gets mistaken by two ladies as her manny (male nanny) when in fact he's the father. Notwithstanding the last scene of this part was unnecessary from a dramatic-construction point of view (it would have been far more interesting to end it when the mother and boyfriend/stepfather are strutting the girl away), it is frankly a bit disgusting that the scene where we learn for sure that the girl's father is Latino ALSO must inform us that he is a sexually desirable dancer. What, the dad can't be just some guy from South America? Now that he's obviously hot, is the audience better prepared to accept that he had a kid with a middle-to-upper-class white woman? Are we that naive as to require such? As if a Mexican construction worker would obviously be too unpalatable.

It's not my place to dictate where the movie should have gone. But in every conceivable set-up and plot twist, the direction taken screams status quo, appeals to safety. All these stories could have been made more interesting, even if we were forced to keep the single-dimensionality of the characters inhabiting them, at the very least by not choosing from standard and obvious stereotypes. Asian girl living in Chinatown being leered at by a scraggly old white guy? How 'bout an Asian cougar pursuing a white college kid instead. Again, I'm not saying the entire conceit has to be changed. It's just that every. damn. story premise. is so hackneyed--and thus they fail to convey anything about why one might love New York, outside the trite. The real way to have improved the film would be to have written a script worth reading.

I will concede the pleasantness of the soundtrack, the good pacing of the movie (even if what was being paced was, well, dredge), and the general feel of many of the scenes. The movie was just fine to sit through, and I wouldn't dissuade anyone from doing so. However, it is telling that the most significant homage paid to non-superficiality is when the old opera singer says (paraphrased) "That's what I love about New York: everyone's from a different place." Well, you wouldn't know it from watching this one.


Having loved 'Paris, Je T'aime', I highly anticipated this film and I admit I went in with high expectations, but was sorely disappointed for a number of reasons.

Although, I was not expecting a re-make of 'Paris' in New York I was expecting the same structure. What I liked about 'Paris' was the breakup of the neighborhoods. You got a sense of each directors style and the story they wanted to tell. In 'NY', there is no clear separation of the stories, at different points in the film, characters from different stories run into each other which made me confused as to who I was watching and what exactly was going on. Also, the switch in directing was evident but confusing since there was no flow.

Another thing I loved about the 'Paris' film was the different takes on love. It wasn't all romantic. There was love between parents and their children, unrequited love, a lonely, middle-aged woman yearning for love etc., it explored so many layers of the complexity of love between humans. 'NY' seemed to only go for an edgy, over-the-top sexuality. There were some redeemable shorts (the older couple having spent a lifetime together, Julie Christie's short), but overall the'NY' film didn't evoke any emotion for me. I didn't connect with any of the characters like I did with 'Paris'. I remember watching 'Paris' and feeling a deep sadness, loneliness, yearning, hopefulness, wonder... it just had so much soul. For me, there was no soul in the 'NY' film.

Maybe if I had gone into it without having 'Paris' looming in the back of my brain as a comparison this film might have elicited a more favorable response, but as a self-titled re-take of 'Paris, Je T'aime' I was sorely disappointed.


I saw this regurgitated pile of vignettes tonight at a preview screening and I was straight up blown away by how bad it was.

First off, the film practically flaunted its gaping blind spots. There are no black or gay New Yorkers in love? Or who, say, know the self-involved white people in love? I know it's not the love Crash of anvil-tastic inclusiveness but you can't pretend to have a cinematic New York with out these fairly prevalent members of society. Plus, you know the people who produced this ish thought Crash deserved that ham-handed Oscar, so where is everyone?

Possibly worse than the bizarre and willful socioeconomic ignorance were the down right offensive chapters (remember when you were in high school and people were openly disgusted with pretty young women in wheelchairs? Me either). This movie ran the gamut of ways to be the worst. Bad acting, bad writing, bad directing -- all spanning every possible genre ever to concern wealthy white people who smoke cigarettes outside fancy restaurants.

But thank god they finally got powerhouses Hayden Christensen and Rachel Bilson back together for that Jumper reunion. And, side note, Uma dodged a bullet; Ethan Hawke looks ravaged. This, of course, is one thing in terms of his looks, but added an incredibly creepy extra vibe of horribleness to his terrifyingly scripted scene opposite poor, lovely Maggie Q.

I had a terrible time choosing my least favorite scene for the end of film questionnaire, but it has to be the Anton Yelchin/ Olivia Thirlby bit for the sheer lack of taste, which saddens me because I really like those two actors. I don't consider myself easily offended, but all I could do was scoff and look around with disgust like someone's 50 year old aunt.

A close second place in this incredibly tight contest of terrible things is Shia LaBeouf's tone deaf portrayal of what it means for a former Disney Channel star to act against Julie Christie. I don't mean opposite, I mean against. Against is the only explanation. I realize now that the early sequence with Orlando Bloom is a relative highlight. HIGHLIGHT. Please keep that in mind when your brain begins to leak out your ear soon after the opening credits, which seem to be a nod to the first New York Real World. This film is embarrassing, strangely dated, inarticulate, ineffective, pretentious and, in the end, completely divorced from any real idea of New York at all.

(The extra star is for the Cloris Leachman/ Eli Wallach sequence, as it is actually quite sweet, but it is only one bright spot in what feels like hours of pointless, masturbatory torment.)


I've never been to Paris, but after seeing "Paris, Je t'aime" I'm crazy to visit this city! I've been to NY several times and I LOVE the city and its boroughs. I kinda expected to be touched by this film, to feel like jumping into a plane and fly there right away, but, lo and behold, I regret the time and money I spent with it. There are no love stories between people or a person and the city. There's a lot of dysfunctional meetings and relations or people who know each other and it just doesn't work out fine. Maybe this reflects a characteristic of the city, where it's said to have thousands of people living on their own. Can't you find love in New York?


This was a movie i could not wait to see! So i finally got it and I was pretty disappointed. For starters,the movie has so little said about New York,just a bunch of confusing shots of buildings,streets,bridges and cafes.It really doesn't stay focused on the New York magic.Another thing that changed my mind was the french movie set inside this movie.I know that it is a remake,but it is not a french style remake! Anyway,here you will notice elements that remind you of french movies,such as long and messy scenes,no or little talking and of course everyone is smoking french style ! The story follows many lives ( too many for my taste) and they somehow seem connected in the end. I feel like there was no dedication to the characters as much as there was on the stories. The movie was too short to cover every single destiny everyone's happy ending.So we can see about 30 people for about 5 minutes each.And there you have your 120 minutes ! if you like active scenes dialogues and stuff this is not the movie for you ! i give it 4 just because i love New York and i loved the cast !


Following the success of "Paris, Je T'Aime", a group of directors decided to get together and make a similar anthology style film based in New York. Unlike the original film, the stories in this film seem to sometimes come and go too quickly--by the time you think are getting into a story, it's over in too many cases. And, the often start up and stop and then begin again--with the stories woven together. As a result, there is no title to indicate that a story is complete and it is less formal in structure.

Sadly, however, while "Paris, Je T'Aime" was hit or miss (mostly hit), most of "New York, I Love You" was miss. The stories tended to be much more sexual in nature but also far less sweet--and often quite terrible. It was an amazingly dull and uninteresting film with only a few exceptional stories--and perhaps the often depressing music made it seem more so. Now understand, it was good quality music but its somber tone really, really made me feel like cutting my wrists! Among the better ones was the story about the young man who took a girl in a wheelchair to prom, the couple talking about cheating outside a restaurant (though this was also in the first film) and the crotchety old couple. This is all so sad because I had loved the first film so much--and I really WANTED to love this film. I respected what they tried but simply didn't like it very much.

By the way, and this is NOT really a complaint, but I was amazed how many people were smoking in the film. For a recent film, that was unusual in our more anti-smoking culture.

Also, if you get the DVD, there are two segments included as extras that were not included in the film. One consists of Kevin Bacon (wearing a cool fedora) eating a hotdog....and absolutely NOTHING more for almost ten minutes. The other features a teen who spends the film videotaping the world--including a very unhappy couple.


A few years back the same persons who created Paris,J'TAIME., which was imperfect but very enjoyable ( my rating was a 7), created this piece of garbage about New York City.

In Paris, I Love You (J'taime)created a feeling for Paris & it was made in many parts of beautiful Paris.

In this current film, I did not recognize New York City, I did not feel that I was in the city of my birth.

New York does have 5 boroughs,I saw no scenes in The Bronx, or Queens ,There is one scene in Brooklyn,(Brighton Beach), I saw no scenes in Times Square or Greenwich Village/ No scenes of the beautiful hotels or theatres. It does have a large cast,most of the performers were not even stereotypes, they were caricatures of the lowest sort.

The very few humorous moments are all of a course sexual nature or quite insulting to the many fine New Yorkers that we all know & love..

A few of the films nominated for the 'razzie' awards were far better.

Ratings: * (out of 4) 20 points (out of 100) IMDb 1 (Out of 10)

In my way of thinking I think the title should have been

NEW YORK, I HATE YOU.


An anthology is always risky business and I think this endeavor should be praised. There's a lot of talent involved here. A great many talented actors, directors and writers. Unfortunately, I couldn't really enjoy this movie based on three issues I had.

First of all, the segments vary incredibly in tone and quality. And unfortunately some of them clash with the others.

Secondly, several segments feel underdeveloped to me. Like seeds of good stories that never come to fruition. I'm not talking about happy endings here (or even an ending period) but rather, they lack even basic development or even solid setups that draw you in.

Last but not least, I did not feel New-York and its inhabitants were properly portrayed.

What you're left with is high-brow short films that may still be of interest to some but will leave the average viewer unsatisfied.


New York, I Love You, or rather should-be-titled Manhattan, I Love Looking At Your People In Sometimes Love, is a precise example of the difference between telling a story and telling a situation. Case in point, look at two of the segments in the film, one where Ethan Hawke lights a cigarette for a woman on a street and proceeds to chat her up with obnoxious sexy-talk, and another with Orlando Bloom trying to score a movie with an incredulous demand from his director to read two Dostoyevsky books. While the latter isn't a great story by any stretch, it's at least something that has a beginning, middle and end, as the composer tries to score, gets Dostoyevky dumped in his lap, and in the end gets some help (and maybe something more) from a girl he's been talking to as a liaison between him and the director. The Ethan Hawke scene, however, is like nothing, and feels like it, like a fluke added in or directed by a filmmaker phoning it in (or, for that matter, Hawke with a combo of Before Sunrise and Reality Bites).

What's irksome about the film overall is seeing the few stories that do work really well go up against the one or two possible 'stories' and then the rest of the situations that unfold that are made to connect or overlap with one another (i.e. bits involving Bradley Cooper, Drea DeMatteo, Hayden Christensen, Andy Garcia, James Caan, Natalie Portman, etc). It's not even so much that the film- set practically always in *Manhattan* and not the New York of Queens or Staten Island or the Bronx (not even, say, Harlem or Washington Heights)- lacks a good deal of diversity, since there is some. It's the lack of imagination that one found in spades, for better or worse, in Paris J'taime. It's mostly got little to do with New York, except for passing references, and at its worst (the Julie Christie/Shia LaBeouf segment) it's incomprehensible on a level that is appalling.

So, basically, wait for TV, and do your best to dip in and out of the film - in, that is, for three scenes: the aforementioned Bloom/Christina Ricci segment which is charming; the Brett Ratner directed segment (yes, X-Men 3 Brett Ratner) with a very funny story of a teen taking a girl in a wheelchair to the prom only to come upon a great big twist; and Eli Wallach and Cloris Leachman as an adorable quite old couple walking along in Brooklyn on their 67th wedding anniversary. Everything else can be missed, even Natalie Portman's directorial debut, and the return of a Hughes brother (only one, Allan) to the screen. A mixed bag is putting it lightly: it's like having to search through a bag of mixed nuts full of crappy peanuts to find the few almonds left.


The problems with this film are many, but I will try to mention the most glaring and bothersome ones. First of all, while the theme suggests a number of vignettes about Manhattan life, the reality was that everything, as usual in movies and TV, was about something bizarre, usually of a sexual nature. The story lines were thin or nonexistent, and virtually every scene, camera shot, line of dialog, and expressed emotion was absolutely, and totally fake. It finally reached a point after an hour of so of mind numbing garbage that I walked out (something no uncommon for me in recent years.) I would have guessed the fi9lm was directed by some wannabe auteur drop outs from some 3rd rate film studies program, but I believe the (at one time, pre-Amelia, talented)director Mira Nair took part in this disgusting travesty, so perhaps the directorial talent in America has descended en masse into the cesspool.


There is a reason this went straight to video- the story is smarmy, Nick Cage plays Johnny in a sleazy way- sex in churches, and other scenes that border on tasteless(like the scene in the laundry room) taint this movie. Judge Reinhold as the cuckold is okay- but the movie itself with its themes of degradation and revenge are not well done. But it is a good film for trivia contests- because so few people saw it.


Thanks to some infamous home video distributor who brought in the so called German Independent Series, Four For Venice is not only awful, but really awful. So awful, that i have it dumped at the second hand goods store for extra cash.

Nick and Charlotte is a married couple who reached an agreement of having sex only on Tuesday due to their hectic schedule of their profession. Eva and Luis is a pair of couple living from hand to mouth, where Eva works as a waitress and Luis, an artist. Nick indirectly causes Eva to lose her job as an waitress. Luis and Charlotte had an affair at the back of Eva and Nick. Luis cheated on Eva by lying to her that he would be flying off to London to do something related to his artwork, but the fact is, he is flying off to Venice with Charlotte for an adultery holiday. Eva kidnapped Nick and dragged her 2 kids along to Venice for confrontation. The trip to Venice ends up both Nick and Eva falling for one another.

The presentation of the journey from Germany to Venice between Nick and Eva marks the failure of the comedy. It not only look senseless, but also draggy. In the film, Nick try to seek help for several ways, but it ends to no avail. It is either the strangers around him who acts like morons, or they are just simply dumb.

The comedy also had the tendency to add in unnecessary scenes to lengthen the story. While some of the problems that can be solved with common sense, no one in the film are using common sense to solve the problem. They prefer to go through one big round to solve the problem.

It fails so bad, that even the beautiful sceneries in Venice fails to pull up the reputation of the film.


Garson Kanin wrote and directed this look at "modern day" Las Vegas and the gap between generations, his first directorial effort since the 1940s! David Janssen is somewhat miscast as a big-shot casino owner who reunites with his son (Robert Drivas, who looks disconcertingly like an older Jason Bateman). Janssen approaches every scene the same way: defensively, with a chip on his shoulder. Playing this role cool and laid-back is asking too much from Janssen, who barks at everyone like a grouchy put-upon husband (he even chews out Don Rickles and makes him cry!). His son, a ne'er-do-well in search of his own identity, makes hip comments about how young people look down on Vegas (give them another ten years), and his disapproval of Dad's lifestyle causes friction. Brenda Vaccaro is cute as a self-conscious secretary and Edy Willaims has a fun bit as a showgirl at an audition. Unfortunately, "Where It's At" doesn't have much else going for it other than the now-dated ruminations on ethics between adults and their kids, some quick T&A shots and amusingly jaded satirical bits on the high-stakes world of gambling--most of which has been covered by now, ad nauseum. ** from ****


Casting bone to pick: David Jannsen was 38 playing the father of Robert Drivas, who was then, 31 (yeah, I realize he's supposed to be just out of college, but clues in the script have him being a loafer and so he's probably 24-25 in the script--- that still puts Jannsen in parenting classes in Junior High). I assume the AMA wrote medical miracle up in their 1938 Year in Medicine. This movie hasn't aged very well at all and now it's main appeal is just to see a snap shot of Sin City, circa 1969 and all the incessant smoking, the weird hair (Drivas has an atomic comb over that makes him resemble a well-groomed hip Cousin It) and trendy fashions that went along with it. If anyone remembers, LV wasn't exactly London... the city coddled the mob and codger gamblers in those days. Drivas comes off as sexually ambiguous; his dad thinks he might be gay (in a sad irony, Drivas himself died of AIDS at 47) and the soapy conflict is from the generation gap issue (ahem, as if one may call 7 years a gap). Sonny boy wants to be his own man and dad wants to pull him into the casino (Caesar's Palace!), and plies him with girls (including the horny-for-money Edy Williams). Interestingly enough, the son doesn't seem to mind being thought of as gay--- unusual for the time and a cute Brenda Vaccarro is nearby to swoon platonically over him. What nudity there is is awfully lame--- just what was needed to pull the audience in for an 'R' rating in the early days of the MPAA rating system (which then was G-M-R[16]- and X). The editing is HORRIBLE and there's stupid-silly overdubs by The Committee (a late 60's neo-avante-garde comedy troupe that mercifully faded off the map within a couple of years). Don Rickles is on board as a blackjack dealer... seemingly preparing him for a role as a floor manager in the much better CASINO two decades later. Not to give anything away, but they would've dealt with Mr. Rickles' character with power tools and a hole in the desert back then. A curiosity at best, far from Joshua Logan's usual caliber of work. Dos/Dias. Now go watch CASINO again...


I can only believe that Garson Kanin must have been two people. The one who wrote the brilliant "A Double Life" and the funny "Born Yesterday" and co-wrote such excellent screenplays as "Adam's Rib" and "Pat And Mike" with his wife Ruth Gordon and then the one who wrote and/or directed such tiresome, sad drivel as "Bachelor Mother", "Some Kind Of A Nut", and this. The cast tries, but the script is so tired and clichéd that even the efforts of the always wonderful Brenda Vaccaro are defeated. The script sinks to it's nadir in the truly offensive sequence in which Janssen's character tests Drivas's character to make sure he's not gay. An ugly sequence, but sadly one which could easily play in a film today. "Ethnic" jokes are now totally verboten, but "fag" jokes are still "good, clean, family fun".


I was thrilled to watch this movie expecting it to be the sequel to the cult classic "Private Lessons" which portrays the dream of any male teenager.

"Private Lessons II" has NOTHING to do with the title I mention. It's just a regular soft-core Cinemax flick that won't make a change in your life. There's just one hot sex scene in a rooftop but that's it. I watched this a long time ago but believe me, this is just a regular boring soft core flick.

The women are hot but that's not enough to rent or buy the movie. My advice is to watch this only if it airs on cable.


Up until the last 20 minutes, I was thinking that this is possibly Jackie Chan's worst movie (excluding his pre-1978 work, which I am not familiar with). The final fight sequence changed all that: it is long and good and intense - indeed, one of the highlights of Chan's career. But to get to it, you have to sit through a lot of "comedy" that might amuse five-year-olds (oh, look! someone threw a tomato at that guy's face) and endless "football" scenes. Not to mention the dubbing (which includes the line "How can I turn it off? It's not a tap" - watch to find out what it refers to). "Dragon Lord" is worth renting for the final fight alone, but the rest of the movie is only for Jackie collectors, and even then only for those who've already seen at least 15 of his other movies. (**)


When I sat down to watch this film I actually expected quite a bit, as the plot takes on quite complex issues. Using football as launching pad for the complication also was an interesting approach. Still unfortunately, despite its bravery of dealing with controversial issues as culture clashes between Muslim and western culture, adding generation conflicts and prejudice towards gays/lesbians, it lets you down towards the resolution with a rather simplistic relief to all the suspense built up throughout the film. This leads me to the impression that the makers took on a little too big a task for themselves to tackle, attempting to be more profound then they managed to deal with.

However, this does not mean that the film is directly bad, as it's rendering of the conflicts where quite believable and also amusing. The film succeeds in being engaging and entertaining in this matter, but as mentioned above the writers seem to have spun themselves a little too deep. This has led to some quite unrealistic character behaviour towards the end to confront the surging conflicts. By this dropping the ball at a time where the makers could really have shown brilliance taking the film to another level of appreciation.

Even if the film does at no point really attempt to be a profound piece of drama, the setting has so much potential in the plot it becomes a disappointment when "the ball drops". This way the film moves from being a good and reflected comedy to a standard cliché that becomes ridiculous in its happy-ending. Nothing is left out in the Hollywood like ending. So even if the story is engaging and one can stomach the large amount of montages, one can't help but roll eyes towards the resolution. Personally I was close to shouting "finish already!!" at the screen.

There were some decent acting in the film, and the two young female central characters had some good moments. So did their parents and other bi-characters. However the handsome Irish coach was an embarrassing piece of acting, that lets the film down quite a bit in terms of realism. He didn't even appear very likable, but rather self involved despite his good deeds, which makes the impending conflict between the girls seem a little strained.

I give the film a 4, as it was an engaging story and they sought out a nice perspective to approach the subject from. The script and cast had many good believable characters, giving the audience a chance to recognise either themselves or others. Had the let-downs not been this disappointing, I'd easily give the film a 7 or 8. If you enjoyed this film, I'd recommend the film "East is East", which I think is an as good, if not better rendering of cultural conflict, as well as being amusing and engaging.


Long, boring, blasphemous. Never have I been so glad to see ending credits roll.


An executive, very successful in his professional life but very unable in his familiar life, meets a boy with down syndrome, escaped from a residence . Both characters feel very alone, and the apparently less intelligent one will show to the executive the beauty of the small things in life... With this argument, the somehow Amelie-like atmosphere and the sentimental music, I didn't expect but a moralistic disgusting movie. Anyway, as there were some interesting scenes (the boy is sometimes quite a violent guy), and the interpretation of both actors, Daniel Auteil and Pasqal Duquenne, was very good, I decided to go on watching the movie. The French cinema, in general, has the ability of showing something that seems quite much to life, opposed to the more stereotyped American cinema. But, because of that, it is much more disappointing to see after the absurd ending, with the impossible death of the boy, the charming tone, the happiness of the executive's family, the cheap moral, the unbearable laughter of the daughters, the guy waving from heaven as Michael Landon... Really nasty, in my humble opinion.


First of all, I was expecting "Caged Heat" to be along the same lines as "Ilsa, The Wicked Warden". Boy, was I wrong! In no way is this film 70s exploitation, "chix in chains", or "women in prison". Sure, the plot consists of a bunch of women in prison, who wear street clothes btw (quite comical), but NOTHING happens.

There aren't strong rivalries, no one tries to seduce the warden or doctor in order to try and escape, and no inmates make out. There are 2 shower scenes, that I suspect is just recycled footage, but no fights breaks out / no one is seduced here - or anywhere for that matter! Aside from the lack of plot, unconvincing, unsympathetic, and flat characters, a couple of inmates that do manage to escape actually return to the prison in order to "free" their fellow inmates??!!

PUH-LEASE, the movie should have just ended off with the escapees riding off into the sunset...as opposed to letting this mess continue!

I feel scammed.


Nicholas Walker is Paul, the local town Reverand who's married to Martha (Ally Sheedy), but also is a habitual womanizer and decides to fake his own death to run away with his current affair, Veronica (Dara Tomanovich). However in so doing, he gets a bout of amnesia (hence the name of the film). Sally Kirkland is also on hand as a crazy old coot who pines for the good Reverand in a shades of "Misery" type of way. It's sad to see a pretty good cast wasted like this. Not the least bit John Savage in a horridly forgettable role as a shoddy private investigator. In a film billed as a 'black comedy', one has to bring BOTH elements into said movie. While this does bring the former in spades, it sadly contains none of the latter. Furthermore you can't emphasize with any of the characters and as thus, have absolutely no vested interest in them. Technically not an all-together bad movie just an extremely forgettable one.

Eye Candy: Dara Tomanovich gets topless; Sally Kirkland also shows some skin

My Grade: C-

Where I saw it: Showtime Showcase


Towards the end of this thriller Ally Sheedy's gaunt latter-day image is used creatively to make up more than one hauntingly evil image. She convinces one that, if a nasty Bette Davis-type role were to come her way, she could carry it off brilliantly. Unfortunately, I can't find many other reasons for seeing this. If you've wondered what Sheedy looks like in a pair of old-fashioned glasses (but why should anyone?) then here's your answer. For the rest, Sally Kirkland's sex-starved crazy woman is really tiresome, and even if you like this sort of thing more than I do you'll have to admit that the tension sags badly during these scenes. Savage's drunken brute of an insurance agent is equally distasteful but at least it's a small role. Of the leading actors, Nicholas Walker inspires no sympathy at all for Paul Keller's plight and his acting is wooden. Dara Tomanovich is better and during her scenes with Sheedy the level rises a little. Sheedy's meticulous, understated performance (though she often seems to be on automatic pilot) is admirable in itself but out of context with the rest. The sets are drab, the camera-work undistinguished.


Where to start... If this movie had been a dark comedy, I would say it was FANNN-TASTIC! Unfortunately for me, and anyone else with free time and a buck to spare (mind you that was the price I paid, got it from Wal-Mart), this movie was meant to be a thriller. The only THRILL I got was watching Kirkland's lousy rendition of Anne Wilkes from Misery sans snowy woodland area. If you want a good laugh, on a rainy Friday night with some friends, then I highly recommend this movie. But if you want to watch something at least half way decent, then don't even bother.

I for one enjoy crappy films, the worse the better in most cases. But Wow... I Meant WOW!! The only person in the entire film that didn't stink it up was the little boy, played by Vincent Berry. The only reason why I even give it 3 stars is because it gave me something to do.


Instead, go to the zoo, buy some peanuts and feed 'em to the monkeys. Monkeys are funny. People with amnesia who don't say much, just sit there with vacant eyes are not all that funny.

Black comedy? There isn't a black person in it, and there isn't one funny thing in it either.

Walmart buys these things up somehow and puts them on their dollar rack. It's labeled Unrated. I think they took out the topless scene. They may have taken out other stuff too, who knows? All we know is that whatever they took out, isn't there any more.

The acting seemed OK to me. There's a lot of unfathomables tho. It's supposed to be a city? It's supposed to be a big lake? If it's so hot in the church people are fanning themselves, why are they all wearing coats?


I had quite high hopes for this film, even though it got a bad review in the paper. I was extremely tolerant, and sat through the entire film. I felt quite sick by the end.

Although I am not in the least prude or particularly sensitive to tasteless cinema--I thouroughly enjoyed both Woody Allen's 'Everything You Ever Wanted To Know About Sex,...' and Michael Hanneke's 'Funny Games'--I found the directors' obsession with this ten-year-old wanting to drink women's milk totally sickening. And when the film climaxed in an "orgy" where the boy drinks both his mother's milk, as well as that of the woman he has been lusting after for the whole film, I almost vomited with disgust for the total perversion and sentimental pap that it is.

Don't get me wrong, I enjoy the vast majority of European cinema, as well as independently made films, so this flick should have pleased me enormously. Avoid this film at all costs, it should be relegated to the annals of History as a lesson in bad cinema.


"Plan B" is strictly by-the-numbers fare except for one thing. I surprisingly found it to be rather insulting.

Jon Cryer is the "star" of this film and plays his usual, smarmy, egotistical, snotty character that was actually endearing in "Pretty In Pink" and has NOT been amusing ever since. Grating doesn't even begin to describe his performance. Ricky (Mark Matheisen) is a muscular, blonde, struggling actor who (gasp!) is only worried about his hair and getting laid. Talk about a stock character...ugh. At least the other three characters are somewhat engaging. Lisa Darr and Lance Guest play a grounded, optimistic, caring couple who are struggling to conceive. Since they are not whiny drama queens, however, their roles are apparently considered boring and they aren't given enough screen time. Sara Mornell rounds out the cast by playing Gina, your usual nice and good-looking young woman who just can't seem to find the right partner in love. I've seen this character a million times before but at least her performance overcomes some of the shortfalls caused by the predictability of her situation.

What startled me about this film was its juvenile promotion of stereotypes. They introduced a Russian character for the sole purpose of mocking him and making fun of the way he talked. He was portrayed as being wild, ignorant and amazingly shallow. They were just getting warmed up though for the usual nonsense about gays. Gina decides to be gay for a while since she isn't having any luck with guys. Honestly. That wasn't that bad except they really went overboard when Gina brought a lesbian to a Christmas party her friends were throwing. Her lesbian date had very short hair (like I'm sure all lesbians do). She also got quite upset (like I'm sure all lesbians do) when Gina had the nerve to put on lipstick(!). Finally, her date goes around the party hitting on just about every woman there and mouths off when Gina expresses her disappointment. Of course, we all know how gay people can't stay faithful for so much as a couple of hours much less months or even years, right? (Please note the sarcasm in that statement. Thank you.)

This film was based on a tired and predictable premise to begin with but Cryer's unlikable performance combined with the idiotic stereotyping sinks this movie to the lower depths of cinema. 2/10


I had the misfortune to sit through the full 102 minutes of what, in my opinion, is this shockingly bad film. It fails on pretty much all levels; the cast is awful, the acting - ham at best and the plot lacks any depth, leaving me feeling violently apathetic as to the outcome of any of the convoluted story lines.

Plan B has none of the charm this genre has the scope to convey and I found myself physically cringing at the various points where the script makes its regular misjudged meanderings anywhere towards the region of comedy.

A bona fide saccharine coated turd of a movie.


Even though there's a repertoire of over 180 films to choose from, this 'Succubus' is often named as THE best Jess Franco film. Heck, even the legendary filmmaker Fritz Lang counts 'Succubus' among his personal favorites. So, maybe it's me but I thought this was a dreadfully boring and overly confusing movie. The opening is great, though, and shows Janine Reynaud performing an SM act on stage. It's all downhill from here, unfortunately. Reynaud's character is a maneater who eventually kills her lovers in some sort of trance. Franco had a decent budget to work with and spends it well on nice locations, beautiful photography and a mesmerizing musical score. This COULD have been his greatest film indeed, if it wasn't for the lame and uninteresting story. It's supposed to be psychedelic but I'd say sophomoric is a better term to describe what's shown here. Half of the time, you don't have a clue what's going on or what exactly is said so even the short running time of 80 minutes seems to last ages. This most certainly isn't Franco's best film according to me. I wouldn't even recommend it to die-hard exploitation fans. If you're looking for more superior Jess Franco film, try to get your hands on 'Las Vampiras', 'The awful Dr. Orloff' or 'Female Vampire'.


I've come to realise from watching Euro horror, especially films made by cult luminary Jess Franco, that you can't expect a plot that makes much sense. However, Franco has gone overboard with this film; and despite a surreal atmosphere, and the film's reputation as one of the director's best - Succubus is unfortunately is a truly awful film. I've got to admit that I saw the American cut version, which runs at about 76 minutes; but unless it was just the logic that was cut, I'm sure the longer European version is just as boring. The plot has something to do with a woman marauding around; practicing S&M and talking rubbish, and it's all really boring. There's no gore and the sex is dull, and most of the runtime is taken up by boring dialogue and despite the fact that this is a short film; I had difficulty making it all the way to the end. I have to say that the locations look good and Franco has done a good job of using his surreal atmosphere; but the positive elements end there. Jess Franco is definitely a talented director that has made some classic trash films - but this looks like it was one he made for the money, and overall I recommend skipping it and seeing some of the director's more interesting works.


'Succubus', the edited version of 'Necronomicon Geträumte Sünden', is a struggle to sit through, even at a lean 76 minutes; any more of this dreadfully boring and pretentious Euro horror tripe and I may have slipped into a coma.

Jess Franco once again delivers a truly awful piece of 60s trash that appears to have been made by a cast and crew out of of their heads on Class A hallucinogenics, since not one second of this mess made any sense whatsoever. Apparently, this is one of the better of his 180+ films  it's hard to believe that there are worse efforts out there.

The unfathomable plot deals with Franco's usual themes of sex, violence and lesbianism and throws in a bit of S&M for good measure, and yet it still manages to remain mind numbingly tedious.

I may leave it quite a while before entering the world of dodgy Euro Horror again  life is too short to be spent watching bilge like this.


A disappointing film.

The story established our protagonist as Chrissy, a 'young', rather sullen individual drifting, not doing much. Actually she does very little to move the narrative along so it didn't surprise me to see the focus shifting on her relatives. It's a pity though, Chrissy seem like interesting character.

Story was predictable and at times felt quite formulated. So the question now is, when are we going to see the Campions, Jacksons, and the Tamahori's breaking ground with compelling, cinematically-told stories that will inspire, rather than entertain for the toll of two hours?

Technically, a disgusting shot film.


Kubrick meets King. It sounded so promising back in the spring of 1980, I remember. Then the movie came out, and the Kubrick cultists have been bickering with the King cultists ever since.

The King cultists say Stanley Kubrick took a great horror tale and ruined it. The Kubrick cultists don't give a damn about King's story. They talk about Steadicams, tracking shots, camera angles.This is a film, they insist: It should be considered on its own. As it happens, both camps are correct. Unfortunately.

If one views it purely as an adaptation of King's novel, "The Shining" is indeed a failure, a wasted opportunity, a series of botched narrative gambits.

I used to blame that on Kubrick's screenwriter. The writer Diane Johnson (author of Le Marriage, L'Affaire, Le Divorce, etc.) has a reputation as an novelist of social manners. Maybe she was chosen for her subtle grasp of conjugal relations or family dynamics. But the little blue-collar town of Sidewinder, Colorado doesn't exist on any map in her Francophile universe.

Kubrick the Anglophile probably found her congenial, however. He, of course, is the real auteur. And considered on its own merits, his screenplay for "The Shining" -- with its mishmash of abnormal psychology, rationalism, supernaturalism, and implied reincarnation -- just doesn't stand up to logical analysis.

I'm willing to consider Kubrick's "Shining" on its own terms. I'm even willing to take it as something other than a conventional horror-genre movie. But it doesn't succeed as a naturalistic study of isolation, alienation, and madness either. Parsed either way, the film pretty much falls apart.

Are the horrors of the Overlook Hotel real? Or do they exist only in the mind -- first as prescient nightmares suffered by little Danny Torrance, then as the hallucinations of his father? One notes how whenever Jack Torrance is seen talking to a "ghost" he is in fact looking into a mirror. One notes how the hotel's frozen topiary-hedge maze appears to symbolize Jack's stunted, convoluted psyche. Very deep stuff.

But if indeed the Overlook's "ghosts" are purely manifestations of Jack Torrance's growing insanity, then who exactly lets the trapped Jack out of the hotel kitchen's dead-bolted walk- in closet, so that he can go on his climactic ax-wielding rampage?

And can ANYONE explain, with a straight face, that black-and-white photograph (helpfully labelled "1921") of Nicholson as a tuxedoed party-goer that pops up out of left field and onto a hotel-ballroom wall during the film's closing seconds? Are we to seriously conclude that Jack Torrance's Bad Craziness stems from a some sort of "past life" experience? (And if you swallow that, since when are reincarnated people supposed to be exact physical replicas their past selves?)

Maybe Kubrick didn't care about his storyline. Maybe only wanted to evoke a mood of horror. Whatever the case, the film tries to hedge its narrative bets -- to have it both ways, rational and supernatural. As a result, the story is a mess. This movie hasn't improved with age, and it certainly doesn't improve with repeated viewings.

I don't deny that a few moments of fear, claustrophobia, and general creepiness are scattered throughout this long, long film. But those gushing Elevators o' Blood, seen repeatedly in little Danny's visions, are absurd and laughable. And Jack Torrance's infamous tag lines ("Wendy, I'm home!" and "Heeeeeere's JOHNNY!") merely puncture the movie's dramatic tension and dissipate its narrative energy. (I know: I sat in the theater and heard the audience laugh in comic relief: "Whew! Glad we don't have to take this stuff seriously!") Finally, Kubrick is completely at sea -- or else utterly cynical -- during those scenes in which Wendy wanders around the empty hotel while her husband tries to puree their son. A foyer full of mummified guests, all sitting there dead in their party hats? Yikes, now I really am afraid.

Given Jack Nicholson's brilliance over the years, one can only assume that he gave just the sort of eyeball-rolling, eyebrow-wiggling, scenery-chomping performance that the director wanted. The performance of Shelley Duvall, as a sort of female version of Don Knotts in "The Ghost and Mr. Chicken," is best passed over in silence.

This movie simply doesn't succeed -- not as an adaptation, not on its own terms. It probably merits a 3 out of 10, but I'm giving it a 1 because it has been so GROTESQUELY over-rated in this forum.


I caught this stink bomb of a movie recently on a cable channel, and was reminded of how terrible I thought it was in 1980 when first released. Many reviewers out there aren't old enough to remember the enormous hype that surrounded this movie and the struggle between Stanley Kubrick and Steven King. The enormously popular novel had legions of fans eager to see a supposed "master" director put this multi-layered supernatural story on the screen. "Salem's Lot" had already been ruined in the late 1970s as a TV mini-series, directed by Tobe Hooper (he of "Texas Chainsaw Massacre" fame) and was badly handled, turning the major villain of the book into a "Chiller Theatre" vampire with no real menace at all thus destroying the entire premise. Fans hoped that a director of Kubrick's stature would succeed where Hooper had failed. It didn't happen.

Sure, this movie looks great and has a terrific opening sequence but after those few accomplishments, it's all downhill. Jack Nicholson cannot be anything but Jack Nicholson. He's always crazy and didn't bring anything to his role here. I don't care that many reviewers here think he's all that in this clinker, the "Here's Johnny!" bit notwithstanding...he's just awful in this movie. So is everyone else, for that matter. Scatman Crothers' character, Dick Halloran, was essential to the plot of the book, yet Kubrick kills him off in one of the lamest "shock" sequences ever put on film. I remember the audience in the theater I saw this at booing repeatedly during the last 45 minutes of this wretched flick, those that stayed that is...many left. King's books really never translate well to film since so much of the narratives occur internally to his characters, and often metaphysically. Kubrick jettisoned the tension between the living and the dead in favor of style here and the resulting mess ends so far from the original material that we ultimately don't really care what happens to whom.

This movie still stinks and why so many think it's a horror masterpiece is beyond me.


I hate this movie! It was NOTHING like the book, and just thinking about it makes me mad. If you watch the movie before reading the book, then yeah, it's a good movie. But King's book was AMAZING and this movie was nothing like it. I mean, the general meaning might be sort of similar but most aspects of the movie are completely different. The ending for example! So in the book it is extremely intense and Danny and Wendy escape seconds before the hotel explodes. but in this horrible movie version jack like takes them through a stupid maze... yeah, there is no maze in the book and there is no reason for it. Another part that made me angry was that jack just kills Mr. Halloran! what the heck, he is basically the hero of the book and they just kill him off like he wasn't important. Overall, it was just bad that the movie was so extremely off.


Many King fans hate this because it departed from the book, but film is a different medium and books should change when they make the jump. That notwithstanding, the movie does fail completely, but it fails entirely on film terms. I'd like to smack the people who tell me it's the scariest movie ever made. I always follow up with the question "Really... exactly what scene scared you?" Every fan I've asked, goes silent. Occasionally someone, at a loss for a decent scare (There are none...), names the "Grape-juice-shooting-out-of-elevators" shtick. If you're afraid of that, I don't know what to tell you, except maybe that you're easily scared. I just rolled my eyes watching these z-grade horror ideas play out in this schlocky, incoherent movie.

One place it diverts from the book and really is insipid is the tedious work the movie does to get Mr Halloran up to the Overlook only to kill him; with the dumbest member of the audience knowing that Jack is waiting behind one of the columns in the corridor that it takes Halloran FOREVER to walk down. Really one of the stupidest sequences ever put on film.

Oh, and nice choice for Mr. Halloran's artwork Stanley! Black light afro-nymphomaniacs really add to the mood and character development of a horror movie. Has there ever been a more "off," out-of-place shot in any movie ever made?

I consider it a miracle that I was eventually able to bypass this turd, and agree that Kubricks 2001 is a truly important film, given the immense 'bad will' generated by both this stupid, stupid movie, and the cult of fawning but inarticulate Kubrick fan-boys, who couldn't describe an idea at work in it with every film resource in the Library of Congress in front of them.

Toss in the grotesque overacting of Jack Nicholson, the introduction of dumb one-liners at tense moments, and the Razzie nominated performance of Shelly Duvall and you have a very crappy movie.


These writings write about the end of the plot so don't read it if you haven't seen this rubbish.

I found this rubbish film in the horror section which made me think it would be a horror. If I owned a video store I'd put it in the BORING section. This film is so rubbish it will make you feel like you have lost your socks.

This film contains endless shots of people driving as if that was scary. Well I drive to work and back (and sometimes to the store or to visit my cats) almost every day and trust me it's not scary. It even starts with 20 minutes of some people driving. Even the little kid does it too. Round and round he goes and he never stops. What's so scary about watching a little kid riding a bicycle for an hour? I think NOTHING and if you watch it you will not think so too.

The family in the car arrive at a big castle and they are given a tour just walking around endlessly looking at kitchens. Then the man walks around a for an hour and tries to kill his family for no reason. That's all that happens and as you can see it's rubbish.


Not the best of the films to be watched nowadays. I read a lot of reviews about Shining and was expecting it to be very good. But this movie disappointed me. The sound and environment was good, but there was no story here. Not was there a single moment of fright. I expected it to a horror thriller movie, but there was no horror no thriller. The only scene where I got scared was during the chapter change scene showing "Wednesday". There are lots of fragments i the movie. Most of the things are left unexplained with nothing to link it to anything. The story does not tell us about the women or other scenes that is shown. Might be a good movie to watch in the 80's, but not for the 21st century.


Ladies and Gentlemen,please don't get fooled by "A Stanley Kubrick" film tag.This is a very bad film which unfortunately has been hailed as one of the deadliest horror films ever made.Horror films should create such a fear that during nights people should shiver their hearts out while thinking about a true horror film.In Shining,there is no real horror at all but what we find instead is just a naive,foolish attempt made to create chilling horror.Everyone knows as to how good the attempts are if they are different from reality.All that is good in the film is the view of the icy valley. The hotel where most of the actors were lodged appears good too.A word about the actors Jack Nicholson looks like a lost,lazy soul who is never really sure of what he is supposed to do.There is not much to be said of a bald,colored actor who for the most of times is busy pampering a kid actor.No need to blame the bad weather for the tragedy.It cannot be avoided as the film has been made and poor Kubrick is not alive to make any changes.


Ok, honestly I dont see why everybody thinks this is so great. Its really not. There were two good things that came out of this movie 1. Jack's performance, he was very good I can tip my hat for him. 2. Danny's performance, he was good. No other then that it got pretty stupid. And, what was Stanley Kubrick thinking drafting Shelly as the Wendy? She was so bad. She looked the same every time she got scared. The problem with this movie was the ending. I would have had more respect for it if Kubrick would have ended it differently. And, the over all movie was just stupid. The problem with the movie is that the book was so much better. So dont see the movie read the book and you will be much better off. 3/10.


I am going to keep this short.This "adaption" of the wonderful King book is a bad joke and nothing more.Of course there are many Kubrick and Nickolson fans in this site and,as a result,this movie has mysteriously find its way in the top-250.

Jack Nicholson is laughable as Torrance and so is Shelley Duvall.The story,that has nothing to do with the book,is an incoherent mess and the characters of Jack and Wendy Torrance are complete jokes.

My advice to anyone that hasn't read the book and wants to understand the characters of this story:stick to the TV series ....

Oh ,and the people who are saying that Kubrick had every right to destroy the King story cause King is...not a good writer should stick to reviewing "masterpieces" like "eyes wide shut".


After just finishing the book the same day I watched the movie, I knew what was supposed to happen. I had high expectations of the movie, because of the rating. The only reason I give this movie a 2 out of 10 stars is that it was alright trying to be a movie. I have a couple main points for not liking this movie.

********** SPOILERS **********

1. The casting. Jack Nicholson barely fits into Jack Torrence's character. Also, I would have NEVER picked Shelly Duvall for Wendy. I pictured Wendy much differently. I can see why they picked Jack Nicholson though, the grin, the pointy eyebrows, but he's not supposed to really look 'evil'. He's supposed to look normal, and he turns evil. Also, they make one of the worst movie couples. Danny was alright, he needed more life though. He acted way to droney.

2. The screenplay. They cut out so many things that were in the book, and added things. Some of the things that were in the book that I was looking forward to in the movie were either deleted, changed, or handled wrongly. Some of the things that were in the book that I was looking forward to seeing (the hedge animals, the roque mallet, the elevator) were not in the movie, and it was 2 and half hours!! I was extremely irritated.

3. The Ending. The ending was changed completly, Halorann died, Jack froze to death, Wendy never got hurt...The Overlook didn't blow up. The Ending was so cool in the book, and the movie messed it up so horribly, I was apalled. Hallorann was never supposed to die, but Jack killed him with an ax. If they wanted to kill him, at least have Jack use a roque mallet. You never even saw a roque mallet during the whole movie.

There are other things that I didn't like about the movie, but there are things that were all right. The camera angels were cool, the blood coming out of the elevator (didn't happen in the book) was cool, but maybe I was too irritated that the movie didn't go with the book, to try to be scared at all. I reccomend reading the book, before you see this movie. I applaud Stephen King for actually agreeing to sign a contract to not dis Stanley Kubrik any more. I would never have done that, I would have taken all the rights I could get to yell at him all day. I can't wait to see the 6 hour version, at least it has the hedge animals.

Rating: 2/10


This has got to be the most stupid film I have ever seen (spoilers ahead)! First of all, the plot is stupid. The little kid is weird and they move to a hotel because his father is the caretaker of it. We find that the kid has a gift, the "Shining". This gift never ever has anything to do with anything except to make the kid seem cool. Then the movie gets more boring and boring until the man finally goes crazy. He goes on a rampage to kill the kid and his wife because... well, he feels like it. Why else would he do it? All of a sudden we see a naked woman in the tub. The man kisses her and realizes he is kissing a dead corpse, which is utterly disgusting. Somehow a black man enters the hotel and is whacked with an axe. Then the kid and the woman take the black man's vehicle and leave the father, who dies within minutes of hypothermia. Most movies aren't a complete waste of time, but this falls right into that category. The music is trashy, the characters are corny (except Jack Nicholson, who is a good actor), the plot is twisted and fits the description of vomit, the ending is very predictable, the storyline is slow, tedious, and boring. This movie is extremely overrated. AVOID THIS MOVIE AT ALL COSTS. I'm surprised it's gotten such a high rating on IMDb.


One Star. That's all this documentary deserves. I haven't felt this disappointed in watching a movie, let alone a documentary, in quite some time.

I'm a BIG fan of the "Walking With..." series, including it's Nigel Marvin spin-offs, for all their gleeful fun yet informative information. And although the subject of prehistoric man has never interested me nearly as much as other prehistoric creatures, the subject is still interesting and unique to explore. Having seen all the other docs from the series, I figured I need to see this one as well, especially after seeing relatively good reviews in other places.

Well for those of you who put up a good review of this doc... what were you thinking?! lol.

Though the information that they were able to get through was interesting, the presentation failed in every other way possible. It had a terrible flow, was incredibly unfocused in what it was trying to say (with information scrambled and sometimes out of of place), horrible effects (that includes the few moments of CGI and especially the makeup effects), and overused MTV-style camera effects.

Speaking of the makeup effects, one reviewer here mentioned how laughable the scene was when the cavemen come across this giant ape and how it looks a lot like a 70s man-in-suit horror movie. Well there are plenty of moments just like that were the people portraying the ape men looked ridiculous and acted ridiculous. None of this is helped by horrible camera positions and compositions.

The worst part of all is none of it is shown in an interesting or dynamic way, or looks remotely real. It doesn't even look like it was taken seriously. It also lacked any emotional punch that the predecessors of the series had. Remember the episode in "Walking With Dinosaurs" of the fate of the Ornithochirus (sp?)? That episode still gets me on the verge of tears every time I watch it. It's this sort of engagement with the subject that lacks here most of all. When you are more engaged in the subject and it's own personal story, even one that is just speculation, you care more about the facts surrounding it.

The only saving graces of this production are the fairly good narration (at least in the BBC version I saw) and the music. Otherwise, DO NOT bother even renting this one unless you want to have a good laugh (which I did frequently, but usually followed by rolling eyes). This does not belong on the shelf with the other "Walking With..." docs.

And does it make sense to learn that this doc was NOT produced or directly involved with the same people who did the others in the series? Hmmm...


OK, If you're looking for another Bastketball Diaries, this is completely the wrong film.

I revolves around two brothers. Max, the younger, has a major cocaine addiction. Adam, the eldest, is a doctor. This movie is suppose to show the plunge from reality to the extreme lows that drugs make possible. It however, does not. It shows that cocaine can be fun no matter what the situation happens to be present. Most of the movie focus is on Max and his parting ways. Eventually Adam, can no longer take the stress from his job and begins to use as well (perscription drugs).

This movie has almost no climax. Doesn't descend into what cocaine really does to you, has boring and low-budget scenes, and the acting of the eldest brother, Adam, is horrific.

I have no idea how this movie has managed to pass and receive awards, it is not a heart-wencher. If you want a clear and true story movie on the extreme world of drugs- rent, if not buy 'The Basketball Diaries'. And notice the difference.

Try to avoid this movie but, if you think you will enjoy. Try and see for yourself...


The movie is about two brothers that are supposed to be alike - but are not in any way expect for being smart - one is a surgeon and they other is able to write a computer code. Geniuses as they like to call themselves which sounds very exaggerated if you compare it to personal characteristics can you perceive from the material of the title.

I honestly didn't like the style of the movie. I believe that anxiety, confusion and deep blues it brings are there for a purpose, but what I don't get is why there is so much of it. The movie is cheap on scenes and tells the story basically with no human aspect in it at all. It gives the comic book like experience. However it's visually numbing the viewer, it somehow brings him inside the blues with brief dialogs, monotonic scenes, dynamic cut, music and abrupt noises.

The movie's storyline is very simple, most of what's going on is being dramatically pictured for long minutes, mostly in confusing delirium simulating effects of drug use and dynamic cuts.

I will say openly that this movie didn't meet my expetations a tiny bit.


This has to be, by far, the absolute worst movie I have seen in the last 20 years. When I saw that Michael Madsen was in it I figured it couldn't be too bad a movie since he has been in some pretty decent films, and he was a pretty fair actor. WRONG! No one should waste their time on this film. I fast forwarded through 80 percent of it and I don't feel that I missed a thing.


It is a pity that you cannot vote zero stars on IMDb, because I would not have hesitated! In fact I would go so far as to say that this film was in the negative stars.

I, like many others, bought this film thinking that because it has Michael Madsen in it, it could be good... No chance! This film was shocking! Imagine a movie length 'The Bold and the Beautiful', well, Primal Instinct did not even come close to that good, and I had previously thought that there would be nothing worse than a movie length 'The Bold and the Beautiful'.

Michael Madsen, how could you do this to us? The worst part is, I didn't fast forward a bit, I was hoping that at the end they would reveal that it was all some sort of sick joke, that they thought it would be funny to make us watch such a horribly bad film.

Where do I start...? Directing - Zero Stars, Screenplay - Zero Stars, Acting - Zero Stars, Cinematography - Zero Stars, Digital Effects - Zero Stars, Production Design - Zero Stars, Make-up - Zero Stars, Casting - Zero Stars, Editing - Zero Stars, Trailer - Half a Star, Graphic Design - Half a Star, DVD Menu - Half a Star.

However I think that it is very important to have seen bad films just so that you know what a really bad film is, so for that reason I am happy that I saw this film, just so that I have a bad film to put at the bottom of my list.


This has to be the worst movie I have seen. Madsen fans don't be drawn into this like I was. He is only in it for a maximum of five minutes. This movie is so bad that the only reason why you would watch it is if all the rest of the movies on earth as well as t.v. had been destroyed.


A BDSM "sub-culture" of Los Angeles serves as backdrop for this low budget and shabbily constructed mess, plainly a vanity piece for its top-billed player, Celia Xavier, who also produces and scripts while performing a dual role as twin sisters Vanessa and Celia. A question soon develops as to whether or not some rather immoderate camera, lighting and editing pyrotechnics can ever reach a point of connection to a weak and often incoherent narrative that will not be taken seriously by a sensate viewer. Celia is employed as a highly motivated probation officer for the County of Los Angeles, while her evil natured twin has become an iconic figure within her fetishistic world largely because of erotic performances upon CD-ROMS, but when disaster befalls "Mistress Vanessa", virtuous Celia, determined to unearth her sister's vicious attacker, begins a new job as a "sex slave" at the private Castle Club where the specialty of the house is a "dungeon party". Two FBI field agents (whose deployment to the Vanessa case is ostensibly required due to her involvement with internet BDSM sites), in addition to a Los Angeles Police Department homicide detective, are assigned to investigate the crime, while endeavouring to provide security for Celia whose enthusiastic performance in her new vocation is avidly enough regarded by her customers as to have created conditions of personal danger for her. Flaws in logic and continuity abound, such as a homicide being allocated to L.A.P.D.'s Operations-South Bureau, a region of the metropolis that is far removed from the setting of the film. Direction is unfocused and not aided by erratic post-production editing and sound reproduction. The mentioned photographic gymnastics culminate with a batty montage near the movie's end of prior footage that is but tangentially referent to the scenario. One solid acting turn appears among this slag: Stan Abe as a zealous FBI agent.


This is not Michael Madsen's fault, he was hardly in it. This movie was just awful. If you want to laugh and be bored, go ahead and watch this movie. Words cannot describe how idiotic it is. Sorry Michael. The cinematography was dark. All the other actors are unknowns. When watching it, it feels like a soft porn, but with no nudity or heated scenes. This movie had sexual overtones, since it is about a underground S & M killer. The acting was bad, except Michael Madsen's parts. He looked like he wanted to laugh. I hope he got paid well for this lousy movie. It is something I would not be proud of. It is not even a B movie for cable, it is more like a F and it should never be shown, ever.


I just watched this film 15 minutes ago, and I still have no idea what I just watched. Mainly I think it's a film about an internet S&M "star" of CD Roms that are about as realistic as flash cartoons online. She's murdered by someone, which causes her sister and a crack team of 2 FBI agents to investigate the death. The local homicide division of Big City, USA is also investigating, though most of his work comes by the way of oogling the CD ROMs which he claims are as realistic "as the real thing". I know. Wow.

Michael Madsen is the only one in the film that has any kind of credits behind him. He's in the film for about 15 minutes, and half of that is him banging the main girl for seemingly no apparent reason. I won't even explain the ending, because quite frankly I can't make it out myself. But before the final scene, we're treated to a 3 or 4 minute montage of everything in the film. Honestly, they could have ran that then the final scene and it would have been the same effect with the cross eyed direction and all.

All in all, stay away from this film. I got it because I love bad movies and I love Michael Madsen. I really could have used that 80 some minutes on something else and have been more satisfied. Like, playing that game with a knife where you jab at your hand repeatedly. That for 80 minutes would be much more entertaining.


I agree totally with the last commenter this could be the worst movie ever made .I too had to fast forward through most of this movie. Michael Madsen must have done this movie as a favor to someone.The picture quality is grainy all the way through .And what little plot there is,is just plain stupid .I give this movie a 1 out of 10 if I could give it a lower score I would .Don't waste your time on this movie or you'll regret it.


The only redeeming part of this movie was the price I paid. At least all I lost was $3.00 and the time elapsed sitting through this bomb. The crew member who was in charge of continuity missed the boat. When the female lead and the FBI guy went to the alleged killers location, Mr. FBI handed the female a revolver. When the alleged killer came out the door, the revolver has magically transformed into an automatic. One is left to ponder would an FBP agent hand a weapon to a civilian? I think not. Ms. Xavier appears to be a very attractive female. It is too bad the R rating did not allow much of her to be seen. It would seem that a film editor cut what might have been the best parts of the film out.


[CONTAINS SPOILERS!!!]

 Timon and Pumbaa are watching The Lion King. Timon decides to go back BEFORE the beginning, to when the story really began. So they go back. Way back. Back even before Simba was born. Back to Timon's old home which was miles away from Pride Rock. A clan of meerkats burrowed underground to hide from hyenas. The worst digger in the clan was a pompous, self-centered meerkat named Timon. His mother took pity on him but Uncle Max just shook his head. Mother suggested putting Timon on sentry duty; Timon had dreams of a bigger and better place out there somewhere. Just then, hyenas Shenzi, Bonzai and Ed arrived and nearly killed poor Uncle Max. That did it. The other meerkats just wanted Timon to go away while Timon took it upon himself to leave. So he kissed his mom goodbye and started off. He didn't get very far before he started getting homesick. Just then he met Rafiki, who taught him to look beyond what he sees. Timon had no clue what that meant so he continued on and met a warthog named Pumbaa, who was all alone due to a flatulence problem. Timon and Pumbaa join up then, but Timon declared them acquaintances, rather than friends.

 They soon arrive at Pride Rock where all the zebras, antelopes, wildebeests, rhinoceroses, giraffe's, elephants and many other plain animals had gathered. What was going on? Timon didn't care. They pressed on. Timon then saw Rafiki atop Pride Rock lifting into the air something he couldn't see. Just then all the animals took a bow. Was this to honor the birth of the new king? No, Pumbaa had passed gas and the animals were bowing to cover their noses; Timon and Pumbaa try an assortment of new homes, but each are discomforting due to incessant singing or hyenas or a large stampede of wildebeests! Pumbaa and Timon suddenly find themselves heading down stream. When they reach land, Timon decides to give up. But then they gaze around at their newfound paradise. It was beautiful: trees and water falls as far as the eye could see. Timon named the place after a strange phrase he learned from Rafiki: Hakuna Matata. Timon and Pumbaa go out bowling for buzzards one afternoon when they suddenly run into Simba. They take him under their wing and become father figures. They teach him the arts of bug eating and belching contests. Pretty soon, a teenage Simba takes on Timon in a snail slurping contest. Simba won, leaving Timon deathly ill.

 Then one day, Simba's childhood friend Nala arrived. Timon and Pumbaa just knew she'd break up the friendship. Suddenly, Simba runs away. Nala and Pumbaa race after him, but not Timon. He chose to stay at "Hakuna Matata" by himself, until Rafiki "talked" some sense into him, so he joins his friends at Pride Rock. Timon's mother and Uncle Max arrive then. While Simba battles Scar, Mother and Max dig a large hole to trap hyenas Shenzi, Bonzai and Ed in. It worked. Scar is soon flung down the same hole where he is devoured by the hyenas. Then all is well. Mother, Uncle Max and the rest of the meerkats go live with Timon and Pumbaa in the paradise that is Hakuna Matata. Back to the present, Timon and Pumbaa finish the movie when suddenly Mother, Uncle Max, Simba and Rafiki want to watch it again. So do Mickey Mouse, Donald Duck, Goofy, Snow White, the Seven Dwarfs, Dumbo, Peter Pan, the Lost Boys, Mad Hatter, March Hare, Genie, Aladdin, and Jasmine.

 Well, I must say that The Lion King 1 1/2 wasn't as good as I had hoped. It was too ridiculous and silly. The original Lion King was a masterpiece. It had a serious story with light comedy thrown in. This one was just silly and made a mockery of it. I swear, sometimes Timon and Pumbaa are just way too overplayed. They're overplayed to the point of no longer being funny, just annoying. The original voice cast is back: Nathan Lane as Timon, Ernie Sabella as Pumbaa, Matthew Broddrick as Adult Simba, Whoopi Goldberg as Shenzi, Cheech Marin as Bonzai, Jim Cummings as Ed, Robert Guillame as Rafiki. New to the cast are Julie Kavner of TV's (Too) long running series The Simpsons as Timon's mom and Jerry Stiller as Uncle Max. So anyway, this movie isn't The Lion King III, and it isn't II because there already is a II. It takes place right after Part I and Part II is a ways away. Hence, it's 1 1/2. In conclusion, I don't recommend this to die hard Lion King fans because it's far too ridiculous and frivilous. However the kids will love it so I recommend it to them. I hope this will also be the LAST Lion King movie. Two is enough. "The Lion King 1 1/2". What we've come to expect from Disney sequel makers.

-


I saw and liked the first two a lot, really. Especially because the second is not just a try to make another one as good as the first. And it's a story standing alone. You don't have to know the first movie. I liked that in the "Free Willy" movies, too.

But... the third, here is absolutely useless! I tried it with a friend of mine, because we both liked the first two. We decided to stop after a good half an hour. The movie is okay, there are funny parts in it alright. But what for? Timon and Pumba were funny creatures in the first two movies. What Lion King 1 1/2 is for me is: a hard attempt to get even more fun of the first movie than it had already, plus telling the story from their point of view. But what for? I'd really like to know. You know, the idea of the two of them sitting in the cinema watching the first one, is really nice. But what comes after is mostly unnecessary. I guess many people liked Timon and Pumba, and so do I really. Yet, for me many parts were very constructed with a try to be funny. No chance, most of it wasn't funny at all, at least for me. Btw. what was the movie about anyway? Was it a) about Timon and Pumba or b) an attempt to get more fun out of the first movie? I tend to choose option b and I'm very disappointed about it.

If you like to see stories like: "the story behind xy", you should see "Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead" by Tom Stoppard with Tim Roth and Gary Oldman. That's really funny and no try to get more out of "Hamlet" then it has.


A dedicated fan to the TLK movies, with the first one being a milestone and the second probably the best sequel Disney has produced, along comes this film... Now I'm not arguing with animation, voice work, music, but this is no more than a Timon/Pumbaa screwloose in the TLK atmosphere. Although it isn't bad, it doesn't add anything. Basically this movie is one big joke... and that's about all that saves it. Make a real TLK3, Disney! The potential is there.

4/10


Having watched both the Lion King and Lion King II and enjoyed both thoroughly. I thought Lion King 1.5 might be worth watching. What a disappointment ! Disney must be getting desperate for revenues.

Especially now that they lost the deal with pixar.

Basically, they just picked up some bits of footage that were left on the editor's floor (or garbage can) and glued them together to make a

quick buck. Unlike LK I & II, both of which had strong story lines.

This movie hardly has a story at all. While the characters and animation are always fun to look at, there is simply not enough material here for a movie. Some of the bits could have been good 2nd disk fillers on the original offerings.

Disney - Shame on you for putting this trash out to make a quick buck!

Next time take the time and effort and put our an enduring work.


I found this to be an utter waste of time, effort and money. I know Disney always displays lack of creativity when making "straight-to-video" films - but rehashing the plot of the original film with a "new perspective" is an all-time low...soon they'll just be re-releasing the original films with new animation and new songs and be calling it a "new version of the movie we all love." Nathan Lane surprisingly returns to his role of Timon yet again. Timon and Pumbaa the animated animals from the world of the original "Lion King" embark on a narrative journey to tell us the original story the way it REALLY happened...as they see it.

Of course Timon is now the hero of the story, yadda yadda yadda, blah blah blah...

The musical sequences are lame and the animation is crap. The vocal talents are impressive for a video feature, but then again, when was the last time you remember Matthew Broderick, Whoopi Goldberg or Nathan Lane being in anything of real commercial substance? Overall if you liked the original you'll hate this. It's insulting because it's unfair to children and adults alike. And that about sums it up.


There really wasn't much of a story in this film. It loosely based itself off the events in the first Lion King movie. It is supposed to be how Timon and Pumbaa met via their aloneness. But there isn't much more than that.

It mixes some scenes from the original, then it ab-libs about how this movie changed them a little bit. But still, is that it? I was hoping for something a little more. Instead, all I have to show for it is an empty plot with little explanation.

I guess if you wanted to see other meerkats in the Lion King universe, then this is it. But other than that, it does little justice for the animators. Disney really should stop these direct-to-video productions. It really was quite boring and could have used Jason Statham. "D-"


I give this film it's props that it is very well made and reasonably well acted. BUt I couldn't get past the implausibility of the whole thing.

First and foremost, a game built around the notion of "Russian Roulette" that has to fill on hour. the big problem is that if you are doing a "live" show, you run the possibility that your first contestant will be the one unlucky enough to draw the "real" bullet. Then what do you do? You have 50 minutes of show to fill and nothing to show. The corollary is that Okay, you get to the end and the first five contestants survive, which means number six has the bullet and can't possibly get the payout. He isn't going to shoot himself at that point, so it's kind of anti-climatic.

second problem, almost as big. Human nature. People are going to flinch, panic, soil their underwear and do things that would otherwise not make very good television. Too much randomness. That's why "real" Reality television is actually tightly scripted and even more tightly edited.

(The only random thing is the "performance artist's" rant about female sacrifices, which were actually rare historically. Even that was predictable, since she went through with shooting herself to no effect.)

We are led to believe the shows ratings would increase while it was going on at 1 AM in the morning (unlikely) with the token Asian girl announcing each boost in ratings.

A point on race and sex. Big surprise the movies two minority (one gay) and two female contestants are the ones who survive. So we are left with the two white males, and of course, the slightly less likable of them is the one who buys it. The purpose of such a show would be it's randomness, but the guy you like the least is the guy who dies.

the Climax is that after spending two hours fighting for televised suicide, the Eva Mendes character (Mendes produced and starred in this thing, so she has no one to blame but herself) actually grows a conscience when someone dies. What did she THINK was going to happen? She is promptly shot by a bystander angry about the whole thing (motives never explained) and the show went on to be a big hit. Really?

the problem with media satire is that it has to either have some grounding in reality or it has to be so over the top to be ludicrous (like Network). This is neither.


Live! Yes, but not kicking.

True story: Some time ago, a Dutch TV station made an announcement that they were going to air a new reality show. A contest rather. The main participant in this show would be a woman who was dying of something terrible and she would be donating her kidneys to one lucky person with progressive kidney failure. For real.

The country and the international media were all over this story like flies on a turd, saying it was appalling, immoral, what-is-this-world-coming-to, and the like. In a way, I had to agree.

As the months passed, the tension built up to a degree that the government was mostly occupied by the issue of whether they should let this show go ahead or not, instead of running the country.

The show did air and right up to the last moment they were pushing ahead. And up to the last moment the country was up in arms, the Prime Minister making speeches, every newspaper writing about it, everyone in the country holding their breaths. And the network pushed on. Towards a new frontier in television. And they definitely succeeded in doing just that. They pushed the envelope.

The show aired and we all watched a terminally ill woman selecting the right candidate to receive her kidneys so he or she would live, whilst she would die shortly after.

And then, in the last moments of the show it was revealed that it was a partial hoax. The woman was not ill, but all the candidates were. There was no kidney auction. The whole show, that, with the publicity and the commercials and all the discussions, built up for months to a fantastic climax, was a publicity stunt to focus attention on the problem of major shortages in organ donors. The man who founded this particular network himself died of kidney disease.

Now THIS is television. Leaving everybody far behind in amazement.

Don't give me a poorly acted, poorly directed flick about some woman trying to get a Russian Roulette show on American TV.

As if.

*Spoiler* As if I'm going to believe they would get this through the FCC. As if I'm going to believe this would get through the US Supreme Court on the basis of free expression. As if I'm gonna believe the ridiculous ending where this woman pulled it off and has conscience issues because some guy shot himself on air.

It's all been done before. Watch Running Man with Arnold instead. At least it had a semi good ending.

*Spoiler* This is an appallingly bad piece of film, together with a ridiculous ending. So she gets shot in the end, is that supposed to make us movie going public feel better after we leave the theater because there was some kind of justice? Don't take my word for it, but I would say this: leave this one alone and watch a test pattern instead, you'll get more quality.


I really don't understand all these positive user reviews. This movie is the worst movie I've ever seen and I'm not trying to be pessimistic.

Eva Mendez is hot but terrible in this film. But I don't think it is her own fault but the directors. He have somehow managed to make everything look artificial; their acting, the idea, the make-up, everything.

The star I'm giving is only for the idea behind the movie, which was very bad executed.

Don't watch this bullshit, go watch a Fellini, Woody Allen or some David Lynch.


I heard about this film and knew it wasn't real good. But I started watching the film (on my film-channel)and was interested. This could be a really great, darkly black satire on todays morals in media. The small featurettes on every contestent were good. It build up to something I wouldn't wanna miss. But when the so called show starts everything becomes implausible, cheap and rather silly. Here's where the writer should have added something that would make people think. But instead it's wrapped up and assuming people are this dumb.

The ending is so bad I give it a 1. Even if the film starts of promising.


Let's see. In the "St. Elsewhere" finale we found out that there was no hospital and that every thing had been in the mind of an autistic child. "Newhart" ended by telling us that it had all been a dream. And "Roseanne" ended by telling us that it all had taken place in her mind. Very "creative". Annoying was more like it. Yes, it was just a TV show and wasn't at all reality. It's just that when you get caught up in a great movie or TV show you end up at least wanting to believe that it's all "real". At least as far as the reality it portrays on screen. This type of series finale had been done twice before and was old hat, frustrating and simply not fun to watch. Now "Newhart" being all a dream? At least done in a creative way that far exceeded the expectations of anyone who loved the show. The idea itself was not too engaging but it was so brilliantly done that its arguably the Best Series Finale Ever. Roseanne left me feeling cheated after being such a loyal fan.


Blazing saddles! It's a fight between two estranged brothers (Dennis Quaid and Arliss Howard), both of whom can ignite fires mentally; they square off over childhood differences, with dippy love-interest Debra Winger caught in the middle. Director Glenn Gordon Caron (the TV whiz-kid behind "Moonlighting") smothers the darkly-textured comedy in Vince Gilligan's screenplay with a presentation so slick, the movie resembles an entry from an over-enthusiastic film student on a fifteen million-dollar grant. It has the prickly energy of a big commercial feature, but a shapeless style which brings out nothing from the characters except their kooky eccentricities. These aren't even characters, they're plot functions. Barely-released to theaters, the film is a disaster, although strictly as an example of style over substance it does look good. Winger is the only stand-out in a cast which looks truly perplexed. *1/2 from ****


I love these actors, but they were wasted in this flick.

I can only wonder, what WERE they thinking agreeing to this crap???

Debra Winger just phoned it in; Dennis Quaid and Arliss Howard were caricatures. Some people thought it was deep. Well, if you liked "Breaking the Waves", you'll probably like this too. I hated both. 3/10


I can't believe they got the actors and actresses of that caliber to do this movie. That's all I've got to say - the movie speaks for itself!!