I will admit that I did not give this movie much of a chance. I decided pretty early on that this just wasn't my kind of movie.

For the most part, it has an excellent look in terms of its cinematography. The scenes of early 70's Manhattan look very good, as does the lead actress. It is a very crisp black and white, which could almost make the movie feel undated and fresh. However, some of the other techniques the filmmakers employ shoot that prospect all to hell. The disjointed editing is VERY late-60's, somewhere between surrealism and new wave. The story also feels like it came from a very specific time, somewhere between free love idealism and artsy experimentation.

The film follows a young girl around the city as she looks for a man who she had anonymous phone sex with. As she meets other odd characters, she reveals her quirks and they reveal theirs. The movie seems to be meant as an off-the-wall, irreverent comedy, but adds an avant-garde feel. I would expect that if you like Andy Warhol movies, you would be very excited to discover The Telephone Book.

Some problems I had: Near the end of the movie, one character tells a rambling anecdote that lasts over twelve minutes-brutal to sit through. Also, there is a very explicit animation sequence that I found gross and juvenile that serves as the film's climax. I did laugh out loud four or five times, and I liked the ending (minus the flat-out disgusting animation). And when the film switched to color for the final phone-booth-at-night sequence, I actually liked the way it looked even better. It ended up being one of those experiences where I felt like I could have really liked it if it been a little different. But this is what the filmmakers gave us. It is obscure, artsy, and way left of the dial, but none of those are reasons to recommend it on their own. I didn't find it to be unique or creative so much as forced and pretentious.


Fans of goremeister Herschell Gordon Lewis should look elsewhere if they are picking up this film for his usual buckets of blood being sloshed about, for there is precious little in the way of bloodletting in this film. Instead, Lewis decides to try and tell the bizarre story, relying on bargain-basement special effects on a budget which could have probably been doubled if the cast had turned out their pockets for change one day. Oddly enough, while cheap and very poorly acted (especially by McCabe as Mitchell), the total outlandishness of the plot keeps attention throughout. Imagine what this film could have been like with a decent budget! Overall, it strains for champagne tastes on a beer budget.


hg is normally exploitive, and it's never really bothered me before--i loved "bloodfeast 2", but i really don't like pseudo sciences or playing on heuristics. the whole movie is based on a man with esp caused by an electrical accident and a witch. i'm not opposed to witches, and i liked "carrie" (the novel and the movie) but this one bothered me. i think it's because of the main character developing esp from an electric line. also the university professor wasting his time studying esp cases. i wasn't alive in the 60s to know first hand whether or not esp was a common fallacy then, but i assume that any theory of such nature would simply be discredited. what really bothered me was the way the police were describing schizophrenics as ruthless, unpredictable villains who can seem like normal people 99% of the time and then just snap. nothing could be further from the truth. i detest such concepts because they add to public idiocy. many people still think that schizophrenia is dissociative identity disorder. whoever wrote this script didn't know much about psychology.

there were some decent concepts to the movie. i liked the way the witch used men; it was a nice change. i liked how she could make herself attractive, but didn't when she was around her forced lovers. i found it interesting how her second lover also burned his face. had the script been touched up for a few weeks before production and not focused solely on making its audience dumber, this may have been a decent movie.


I have seen about a thousand horror films. (my favorite type) This film is among the worst. For me, an idea drives a movie. So, even a poorly acted, cheaply made movie can be good. Something Weird is definitely cheaply made. However, it has little to say. I still don't understand what the karate scene in the beginning has to do with the film. Something Weird has little to offer. Save yourself the pain!


I waited almost 25 years to see this movie, thinking it might be an underrated work, from a period animation was no longer of the quality it had once been. It starred one of the best film villains of all time, was based on a beloved series of children's books, and was a Disney Studios production. What could possibly be wrong with it? As it turns outs, almost everything.

Well, not everything. Vincent Price as Rattigan and Henry Mancini's swanky score are the movie's two saving graces. Price is wickedly enjoyable, and Mancini more professional than the material deserves. They bring class to a project that otherwise belongs in obscurity.

Meanwhile the rest of the movie, while filled with inappropriately adult situations, still suffers from a completely dull script, blandly generic voice work, terrible songs, and lazy animation that wouldn't have been out of place on any of Disney's mid-1980s Saturday morning TV shows.

This was a complete disappointment to me. It's amazing that this movie was nearly contemporary with The Secret of NIMH. Costing a fraction of this, an independent studio produced something with more creativity in its trailer than GMD has in its endless running time.

The extra star that keeps this from being "awful" goes to Price and Mancini.


The Brothers Quay are directors, judging by conventional thought, should have stuck to making short films. I myself actually really liked their first feature, Institute Benjamenta, but judging by their sophomore effort, The Piano Tuner of Earthquakes, I'm willing to agree they don't come close to equaling their past genius at feature length. Piano Tuner is, without a doubt, a gorgeous film to look at, and often to listen to. Unfortunately, it's borderline painful to sit through with its convoluted narrative and glacial pace. Reading the plot synopsis, it sounds like a pretty good story. But the Brothers fail miserably to bring it to life. One thing they should consider avoiding completely in the future: dialogue. My God, it's awful here. A huge bust.


When I first picked this film up I was intrigued at the basic idea and eager to see what would happen. I'm a fan of animation and love it when it's successfully merged with live action footage. However, the animation in this film was about all I enjoyed. Although it must be said that the actors' performances were excellent. The visual look - including the animation - gave a wonderfully unnerving air to the piece. However this was quality of unease was lost amongst the overblown imagery, both visual and in the script, that you were practically hammered over the head with. Most annoying about this was the relative lack of importance to the plot. It seemed that the plot was shoe horned in at irregular intervals giving a stuttering effect that detracted massively from the flow of the piece. The voice overs from Felisberto - especially the one at the end - very much felt like a desperate attempt to fill in gaping holes in the plot which had been ignored in favour of side issues such as the whole ant thing (and even that wasn't properly addressed). I'm afraid the whole piece came across as, at best, a 'reasonable first attempt', by a teenager who has spent far too much time reading DH Lawrence. Not what you expect from seasoned film makers at all.


I really wanted to like this movie, but it was just imposable. The acting was ultra hammy, the plot was annoying, and the pace was SLOW, sooo slowwwwww. The whole time sitting in the theater i wanted the movie to end. Twenty minuets into a films and I'm praying for an ending. Sure some of the visuals were nice, but c'mon guys, I mean really! And for a movie about a guy tuning magical instruments there really wasn't much music to speak of. The music there was was annoying, and boring. There were sound loud shrill sounds at times too, those were also annoying. Mainly this film managed to bore me, and creep me out at the same time.

I'm glad its over. I need to go see "Tideland" and wash this bad taste out of my mouth.


Gayniggers from Outer Space is pretty much summed up by its name. Running only 27 minutes long, it describes a spaceship of gay blacks that come to Earth to free the men from women. While I see a little significance to the plot, it also is really illogical. Granted, its meant to be a comedy/spoof on society and science fiction. I found myself laughing several times, so it succeeds there.

The special effects are horrible. When the spaceship is floating above the Earth, you can see stars zoom by for no apparent reason. The asteroids shown in the beginning look fake, the equipment on the ship is illogical, there are several misspellings in the text, the actors are unconvincing, the characters are messed up; in general, the whole thing doesn't take itself seriously. If you get past all the aspects that make it a bad movie, its very accessible and easy to see through to the end. Some parts are hilarious. But overall, the only thing that you are left remembering is that it was one of the most ridiculous concepts ever.

Seeing that its a short film and has some funny aspects, its not the worst thing to see. But its illogical and holds little long-term value. I can't really recommend it; if you do watch it, do so for the unique concept, not the quality.


I was recently online looking at a site that featured public domain movies. In their long list of films was this film and I thought I must be hallucinating at such an offensive title and premise. But, no, that's really what it was. And since the film was only about 27 minutes long, I decided to give it a try. If it had turned out to be some porno movie, I would have stopped watching. Instead, it turned out to be the most bizarre film I have ever seen. The Danish production crew tried, with a budget of about $49, to make a Star Trek-style film about a crew of very gay men traveling about the galaxy wiping out female oppression by killing all the women--like they proceeded to do on the Earth! And in every case, they were met with cheers and thanks from the now gay men of the planet.

Subtle, this ain't. With some of the most obscene and juvenile names of characters I've ever heard, I don't even think I can write them on IMDb without having my review removed! However, despite the utter crappiness of it all, it was strangely watchable and worth a peek. But, as I mentioned already, due to the crude names and odd subject matter (though no nudity), it's a film for adults only.

By the way, this movie left me with 1001 questions as to WHO would make this, WHY make it and WHO was the intended audience?! It may not be the absolute worst thing I have ever seen, but it probably is the weirdest and possibly the most offensive!


Gayniggers from Outer Space is a short foreign film about black, gay aliens who explore the galaxy until they stumble upon Earth. Being gay, their goal is to have a male-only universe in which all people are gay. Hence, when they discover women or "female creatures" live on Earth, they are at first terrified; eventually they decide to eliminate all women on the planet and liberate the male population.

An offensive title with a racist, homophobic and sexist storyline, albeit probably intended as a satire, give this film some shock value. However, there's little substance underneath. As another reviewer pointed out, there are few jokes besides the characters' names (eg. ArmInAss); I think I laughed once at one small gay joke. I think I got the point of the film quickly, a satire of bad science fiction, but after that I had had enough; I kept wanting the film to end already (and it is a short film!). Not brilliant or particularly well-written.


It's hard to know what was going through Per Kristensen and Morten Lindberg's heads when they wrote "Gayniggers from Outer Space" - the movie is billed as a comedy, yet there are no real jokes beside the crude character names (Capt. B. Dick, Sgt. Shaved Balls). The rest of the movie is a (presumably) unintentionally funny affair with ridiculously unsynchronised voice-overs (with the 'actors' basically reading their lines with no hint of feeling), 'futuristic' computer displays filled with spelling mistakes, and a plot that makes almost no sense.

Even though 65% of viewers have given this movie a perfect 10 out of 10, this is the complete opposite of what a good film is. It may be ENTERTAINING to watch with some friends, but this film only deserves about a '2' out of ten...slightly higher than the lower possible rating only because of the sheer fact that the writers somehow managed to get some black guys to star in this movie.


This film is about a group of extra terrestrial gay black men exterminating females on Earth, in order to create a gay Universe.

I watched it with the intent of seeing how bad it was. Still, I was shocked at how bad it was. It looked more like a film made 50 years ago. The acting, if any, is ultra bad. The sets and props are so ridiculously fake, making any college film look mega budget. And the special effects are laughably simple, indeed jaw dropping as others have commented, but jaw droppingly embarrassing.

One has to be severely intoxicated, or in an altered state of consciousness in order to appreciate this film. If I was from Denmark, I would be severely embarrassed and humiliated that my countrymen produced such a horrifyingly bad film.


Well, what can i say about this movie. I'm speechless. I could go on about how stupid this movie is forever though the one thing that REALLY pi*sed me off was the music. And to top it all off someone commented on how much they LIKED it. To them all I have to say is that it was ripped off from one of the best martial arts movies of all time Fistsof fury starring Bruce Lee. IF he was still alive and ever came across this movie he'd be horrified. the rest of the movie is absolutely ridiculous and a waste of tape. I say tape because a movie like that couldn't possibly have been shot on film.I now feel more stupid for wasting 30 minutes of my life watching it. The only reason why i even saw it was because my roommate downloaded it out of morbid curiosity. What is this world coming to.


With a movie called "Gayniggers from Outer Space" how could you go wrong? Just throw in some over the top stereotypes for the characters, use the Village People as the main suppliers for the soundtrack, and throw in tons of gay-gags. Plot is unimportant. Too bad, this film doesn't contain any of this and every joke misses the spot. The characters all look alike apart from the german gaynigger, one or two jokes work, the rest fails.

The title made me laugh and I was prepared to laugh even more about the film. My expectation were to high apparently.


This movie was amusing at times, hell sometimes it was even downright funny.

The underlying message I got from the film though, was that women are responsible for all of the troubles of man. Every time a woman is depicted in the film, she is being lazy, being slutty or lambasting some poor guy for no apparent reason. I don't think the message involved is good for women or gay men.

But, it is a comedy, and a piece of art, so it is simply someones point of view. Even if I don't agree with it, they are still entitled to it.

An amusing film, but some of the comments others have made are just plain stupid. Best film ever my foot.


This is easily the most disappointing, least gratifying movie of the entire so-called blacksploitation genre, which, by the way, are films we generally enjoy a great deal in our home. Rather than being "exploitation" or demeaning, these films actually provide a priceless insight into an era. Well, not Bucktown.

In this story, Duke returns to Bucktown to operate the night club left to him by his recently deceased brother. He quickly learns that the city is entirely controlled by a corrupt police force, bleeding protection money out of all the local businesses. Duke resists, and determines that he will rescue the city from the corrupt police. Unfortunately, he does so by calling in a posse of his friends (these people are vaguely explained as some former black-militants who have worked with Duke on "jobs" in the past) and they simply murder the entire police department in cold blood. And literally in the presence of hundreds of witnesses who do nothing to stop it. Ignorance is not a justification for murder, and it would have been much more entertaining to see the Cracker Police suffer for their actions as opposed to merely getting whacked in the street. While revenge is a ubiquitous and generally satisfying theme in films of this genre, it is a far cry from seeing Pam Grier track down the thugs who off'ed her family, cuss them out, give them a jujitsu ass-kickin' and set their 'fro on fire. That has art (and a reason for existing) and merits a level of respect that is quite undeserved by simply shooting someone in the back. Of course, in this bizarre tale, she is playing a woman completely under The Man's thumb, afraid of the Crackers who run her town and oppress her people. Indeed, her advice to Duke is, "Run, man, they gonna kill you!"

Following the sickening and gratuitous violence, we are expected to believe that the town's mayor wholeheartedly condones the actions of Duke and his friends, congratulating them and offering to throw a parade in their honor, as opposed to, say, calling the district attorney to press capital murder charges against them and have them taken into custody. Duke's posse declines the parade and instead opts to fill the numerous vacancies on the police force created by their recent killing spree. They immediately prove to be even more corrupt than their Cracker Police predecessors (to quote the mayor, "They are ten times worse than what we had before!"). Now Duke finds he must again rescue the citizens of Bucktown from corrupt, protection-racket law enforcement officials and again make it safe for decent folk to operate a prostitution business in the streets. Unfortunately, Duke has already lost all moral high ground and sympathy due a hero, as he was a willing participant in the murder of the original police force. I wouldn't have cared one way or the other if he had rescued Bucktown or gotten plugged himself at this point. I suppose we are to be entertained by the clever way Duke has to outsmart the new Police Goons, but in reality the film has now just become an opera of gratuitous violence, Duke murders all of his former friends and allies in cold blood with the same absence of compassion he had when gunning down the Cracker Police. Duke is a pig.

Finally, when everyone in town but Duke, Aretha, and the employees of the local brothel are dead and bleedin' in the street, our hero and heroine walk off into the night as though they had some admirable qualities or redeeming values; they don't. Duke is merely a murderous thug and Aretha his enabling misogynist accomplice. If you are interested in this genre of film, by all means, I highly recommend them, see Coffy, Foxy Brown, Truck Turner, Blacula, Sheba Babybut if in the process you should run across this DVD, throw it as far away as you possibly can! Drop it like it's hot! It should be treated as one would treat a glowing puddle of nuclear waste! There is no single film in the entire Blacksploitation era that is not dramatically more entertaining, satisfying and populated with more sympathetic and admirable characters than this piece of slime, obviously written by and targeted at some hormonally imbalanced high school sophomores.


Jennifer Cassi (Gina Philips from "Dead and Breakfast") returns back to the house she grew up in which she recently inherited from her deceased sister, unbeknownst to her grandmother (Fay Dunaway) who's still living in it. Jennifer decides to sell it as she's in dire need of the money much to Granny's chagrin. She also begins to have troublesome recurring nightmares of a mysterious raven. There was really no one to relate to in this film. Jennifer seemed cold, distant, unsentimental, and narcissistic, whereas the grandmother seemed spiteful, sad, and also narcissistic. The film is good and well-made, but with no one to empathize with I found it hard to care about what happened to them.

My Grade: C-


Jennifer's Shadow is set in Argentina & starts as Jennifer Cassi (Gina Philips) arrives there after her sister Johanna dies. Jennifer is left Johanna's large house in her will, Jennifer decides to sell the house & head back to Los Angeles even though her Grandmother Mary Ellen (Faye Dunaway) is opposed to the sale. However strange things begin to happen, Jennifer starts having nightmares about Ravens pecking at her & she starts to feel very ill. After a check up in hospital it seems that one of her kidney's have mysteriously disappeared, what is happening to Jennifer? Is it an ancient family curse? Will Jennifer be the next to succumb to it...

This Argentinian American co-production was co-written & co-directed by Daniel de la Vega & Pablo Parés & is a really dull waste of ninety odd minutes, a tedious & predictable modern ghost story that I would imagine will put more people to sleep sooner than scare them. The script by Vega, Parés & P.J. Pettiette is pretty slow going & tedious which is not what anyone wants, I mean I'm sure most people don't want to sit down & be bored out of their skulls. The character's are all uninteresting & fairly faceless with little or no motivation for anything they do. For instance who is that graveyard caretaker guy? How did he know about the demons? What is his interest & motivation for getting involved? I couldn't see it. Jennifer herself is a pretty unlikable & bland leading lady, her Grandmother Mary Allen is as clichéd as they come & it's surprising that she is so obviously the villain. I mean for this sort of mystery based horror/ghost story it's surprisingly predictable & routine. There are gaps in both logic & the story which together with the terrible twist ending which isn't much of a twist I didn't like Jennifer's Shadow one iota.

Directors Vega & Parés goes down the much used route of bleaching almost all of the colour from the picture which often renders it not too far from black and white, I suspect that they wanted to give it a period Gothic feel but it's been done so many times before & often so much better that it didn't do much for me at all & just makes the whole film look dull & lifeless. There's a definite 40's period look as well, from the costumes to the interior of the large house but again it's rather half hearted & cheap looking. Jennifer's Shadow is well made but it's rather forgettable, it's not scary or creepy & it's rather predictable. If that wasn't enough there's no gore either, there's a few scenes of Ravens pecking away at people & a beating heart but nothing else.

With a supposed budget of about $1,000,000 & retitled to The Chronicles of the Raven for it's US & international DVD release this is reasonably well made but a million won't buy you too much these days & Jennifer's Shadow pretty much proves that theory. There are too many scenes of actor's speaking in thick Argentinian accents as well, even though it might be realistic I actually like to be able to understand what people are saying. The acting is alright although Dunaway overacts badly & is obviously there for the money.

Jennifer's Shadow is a rubbishy ghost film that I thought was a total bore from start to finish, I would rather watch The Incredibly Strange Creatures Who Stopped Living and Became Mixed-Up Zombies!!? (1964) again instead. A total waste of time.


This movie was a littttle confusing at first. I usually like Gina Phillips, but this one I have to say was a bad choice just like her doing the movie Ring Around the Rosie, that one also not one her good movies. Jeepers Creepers was way better. Anyway, Faye Dunaway was good. She totally creeped me out and at the end, that was crazy. It was about Jennifer Cassi(Phillips) who comes to her twin sisters funeral. She stays at a house that her sister owns and her grandmother(Dunaway) lives at with an Aunt named Emma. Mary Ellen(Dunaway) is kinda sacrificing her relations to stay alive and as long as she wants to live, she can't die. Even if Jennifer tries to kill her, which she tries. Ravens have a weird part in it. When the relations go to sleep, the Ravens eat there organs, so they can't go to sleep. But they do. Basically it all crazy and Mary Ellen will never die and her relations will be buried, but not dead, b/c they have to suffer forever so Mary Ellen can stay alive. Yeah, I hope this helps. If it doesn't, sorry. Love ya.


Oh this was a really bad movie. The girl who plays Jennifer is OK, but I think she acts bitchy through the movie, not because she is having her organs ripped out by a raven at night, but because she is thinking of firing her agent for putting her in this piece of crap. Faye Dunaway acts like she is remaking Mommy Dearest and the ending is completely silly. I really can't recommend this movie at all even though as a fan of Edgar Allen Poe, I was intrigued a bit by the references to his work(Ravens, House of Usher-like family curse,and being buried alive)-still he would probably turn over in his grave if he knew about this film.


Don't bother. A little prosciutto could go a long way, but all we get is pure ham, particularly from Dunaway. The plot is one of those bumper car episodes... the vehicle bounces into another and everything changes direction again, until we are merely scratching our heads wondering if there were ever a plot. Gina Phillips is actually good, but it's hard playing across from a mystified Dunaway playing Lady Macbeth lost in the Marx's Brother's Duck Soup. Ah, the Raven...now there's an actor. And there is the relative who just lies and bed and looks ghostly. Or Dr. Dread who's filled with lots of gloom and no working remedies. I'm one of those suckers who just has to see a movie to the end. Quoth the Raven, "Nevermore."


...cause they're both pretty lousy. I think the best part of the movie is the horrendously imperial picture of Faye Dunaway at the top of the stairs. She looks like she could very easily step out of that picture, rip someone to bloody pieces, and calmly re-enter the portrait looking as if nothing had happened. Now, you know a movie's in trouble when part of the set furnishings manages to attract your attention.

I admit, I paid $30 for the DVD just so I could see Faye Dunaway in a contemporary horror movie. I know what you're thinking--30 bucks right down into a gaping black hole. And you would be absolutely correct. This movie sucks. There, it's right out in the open. I was expecting some actual scares, and I waited and waited and waited. None came. The raven (probably a crow in makeup) didn't scare me, seeing small pieces of internal organs didn't scare me, and even Faye didn't scare me. I'm not that brave, I know, so it must be the movie itself that is the trouble. What's more, Jennifer wasn't scared either. Her internal organs were literally falling apart and she seemed more peeved than anything. Her life was rapidly coming to a close and she's worried about attaining more money. Honey, you can't take money where you're going!!! "I need money," she continually says, completely ignoring the fact that her lungs have collapsed and ceased to function.

Meanwhile, I spent the whole blasted movie wondering what was up with the grandmother (Faye). I was suspicious at first, Faye playing a grandmother and all, and I was still suspicious at the end. There is another relative living in the house that Jennifer and Mary Ellen the Grandmother-From-Hell are forced to share temporarily, and I'm guessing she is of the same generation as said grandmother. Here's the weird part--the relative looks like she's just endured her eight hundredth birthday party. Mary Ellen looks like she's just gotten a face-lift from a renowned surgeon. Face-lifts can't work miracles, but I think Faye's appearance is important to the rice-paper plot. SPOILER!!! It seems that the family is plagued by an illness that affects bad acting...sorry, my little joke. Seriously though, there's all illness that causes their organs to fail and ultimately disintegrate. Yuck, huh? Interestingly enough, Mary Ellen is still alive and all her organs are intact. How did she avoid the Family Curse? Something's up with her, obviously.

Another reason for mourning the loss of my thirty dollars--this movie features one of my all-time movie pet peeves. I refer to the double ending. This movie ends twice. I absolutely hate it when that happens, and in this movie it feels like the director shot the ending, didn't like it, and forget to remove it during editing. I guess it's supposed to be scary, but it is only if you're a film editor.

There is one perk to this debacle, though, and it's one of the reasons I bought the DVD. The "filmmaker" commentary features Faye Dunaway, and I wanted to see how she acted when she didn't have lines to recite. Guess what--the movie sucked so bad I wasn't able to sit through it again. Drat.


For some reason, TV Guide gave this two and a half stars, plus Faye Dunaway is in it, so it definitely looked like something to see. My, oh, my, this may be the worst film I've ever seen. Ever. From its horrid acting (every time the girl asks the boy what's wrong with him, I shouted to the TV "I can't act!" When she asks what he needs, I yell "I need acting lessons!" to the unbelievably bad dialog ("Give me back my organs!").

And the Brian DePalma wannabe ending, too, it was all just beyond awful. I wanted to like it. Dunaway is one of the best actors ever. And the production values were pretty good.

But wowzers, this had me laughing, LAUGHING!, most of the time.

Don't even bother out of curiosity, that was my first mistake. Staying with it was definitely my second, and third and fourth.


The only reason I rented this was because of the article in Fangoria Magazine. The article made this film look interesting. Well, it isn't. This was a very boring, amateurishly written and directed movie. All the actors in this movie are awful, except Faye Dunaway, who is always a joy to watch. But too much time was focused on Gina Phillips and her ridiculous encounters with ravens and Duilio Marzio. Marzio has such a thick Argentinean accent, you can only understand every couple of words he says. Also on hand is Nicholas Pauls, who plays the ultra-bland love interest to Gina Phillips. The bottom line: this movie is not scary. There is only one good scene and that is the last five to ten minutes of the movie. I would have given this one star, but I gave it three just because I like Faye Dunaway so much. But even she wasn't that great in this.


This is the last time I rent a video without checking in at the IMDB reviews. The Limey is directed by Steven Soderbergh who also wrote wrote the truly awful Nightwatch with Ewan Macgregor and directed such trash as Out of Sight with the anti-talented Jennifer Lopez. Terence Stamp is a fine actor and it is a shame he involved himself in such a bad film. There is frequent confusing editing that seems like it was a last minute decision in order to make up for the lack or story, filming and just plain common sense. This film does everything wrong. What were they thinking?


This film has the look and feel of a Student film project. Yeah, there are some interesting (albeit gimmicky) edits and shots, but the end result was juvenile.

The director didn't seem to be saying "Look at this film." It seemed as if he were saying, "Look at ME! I'm a DIRECTOR!"

Thumbs down.


There was not one single redeeming factor in this movie. The girlfriend and I both love action films. Especially fight scenes (Bloodsport and Kickboxer was awesome), but this movie was not entertaining. Five minutes of action followed twenty minutes of talking and "angry" facial expressions. The main hero is a troubled character who has seen battle and thus is forced to look seriously constipated at all times. The Army has disrupted his bowel movements on top of perfecting his fighting technique. The music isn't good either. They fight to the rap and hip-hop style of the streets, 'cause these guys are thugs. The rest of the soundtrack is the usual background noise to low-budget dramas.

Everything about this movie is classic B-style. The actors deliver their lines as if reading them from cue cards and the lines themselves should be set on fire and left burning in some rotten Hollywood alleyway. The film is called "Honor," but there was no honor in making this film. It was simply a waste of money, and spending wisely is something I consider to be honorable.

Go see Felon instead. The fight scenes and situations are more real.


Wow, I knew this film was going to be bad but not this bad. Spoilerific comments ensue.

Roddy Roddy Piper is sickly sweet retired cop (cliche!), helping out everyone - smiling like a post-op lobotomy patient through-out and lamenting over his dead son. His adopted son returns from Armed Forces "Special Ops" and because he's "seen things" - portrayed by clenching his teeth if anyone mentions anything about the past. Time to clean up the streets from another guy who once knew Piper and his dead son (who the bad lad killed) and his adopted son.

Oh, the love interest is a pretty young lady who decides for no reason that she wants to jump the bones of the ex-Army bloke. This happens in about 2 minutes of 1 scene.

The action could have saved this film, but it's even worse than the storyline and acting. It's all been done before, it's all been done much much better (Ong-Bak is a prime example). This is the worst film I've ever seen - and I've seen Waterworld, twice.

Erm, the film is called HONOR (Spelt Wrong for the Americans) and the tag line has "from the makers of Bloodsport and Kickboxer" - check out Director David Worths other films and you'll soon realise why they put these 2 films on there, even though they are over 10 years old. Such classics as "Shark Attack 3: Megalodon" - says it all really.

I'll give you £10 if you don't go to see this film.

PS - Apologise for not know character names, tells you something though.


Absolute garbage, worse fight scenes than a 20 year old van damme movie or American ninja etc.

Truly dire acting, not a skill in sight in the entire movie its like a cast of wooden sculptures.

Watch it just for how truly bad this film is, it may have been acceptable in the 80s but this is a 2006 movie, i don't have much love for this movie as it wasn't born in the 80s.

If you like real fight movies then check out tony jaa in ong bak and the protector, those are proper martial arts films.

have a laugh and watch this today you may see the unintenional humour at how grim it is.


I have not yet seen anyone slate this film and i think i may be the first.

It was awful. I actually didn't watch the end of it. It was like watching a boring soap or a really good one (all soaps are crap). The actors were poor and storyline was bad. The person who rated it 10/10 has no idea what he is on about. The script was awful. 2 People was in an angry conversation together involving threats and you expect the good guy to say some thing really good and beat the crap out of him but no. He says "If you do that ... I will hurt you" Hahahahaha. If comedy is your thing, watch away. Please do not watch this film because ... It's CRAP!!!

Summary: Poor acting, bad fights, bad script.

Don't watch! Of course this is in my opinion.


I'm a big fan of Italian films from the seventies, and I wouldn't hesitate to list the beautiful Barbara Bouchet among my favourite actresses of all time, so I did go into this film with some hopes. However, it soon becomes apparent that this is a largely pointless film that isn't going to go anywhere. Clearly nobody would go into this expecting much more, but the fact that this is pointless gets more annoying when you consider that it's also rather dull and none of the characters are interesting. As the title suggests, the film focuses on a 'rogue'; in this case one that steals, womanises and smuggles stuff. That's basically all the plot that this movie has. The film does have a real 'seventies style' to it and the idea of it all being very carefree gets across well. It sometimes seems like directors Boro Draskovic and Gregory Simpson were trying to put across some sort of point, although whatever that point is doesn't come across very well. Seeing Barbara Bouchet on screen is always a pleasure, and that is the case here too; she's definitely the best thing about the film and the sequence in which she hangs out of a car naked is the best part of the film. Overall, The Rogue will probably have some appeal for people who love the seventies style, but unfortunately it doesn't have much else to offer.


Wow this movie sucked big time. I heard this movie expresses the meaning of friendship very well. And with all the internet hype on this movie I figured what could go wrong? However the movie was just plain bad. It was boring and the character development was never there. Space Travelers was also a horrible movie, if you didn't like that movie there is no way you will like this.


May I please have my $13.00 back? I would have rather watched "Hydro- Electric Power Comes to North America". Again. This is a movie with one voice. The same voice, which comes out of every characters mouth regardless of age or gender. To listen to that voice again I would have to charge at least $150 an hour. And I don't take insurance. It was eerie watching Will Ferrell morph into Woody. But I don't think imaginative casting is enough. One should wait until they have a story before they bother making a movie. Unless he's just doing it for the money. And if that's the case why not just reissue an All-Rap version of "What's up Tiger Lily?"


Woody Allen, when at his best, has one of the sharpest pens around. He can make an acute observation and wrap it around a punch line like nobody else. However, when he's at his worst his movies can stench of pretentiousness. Unfortunately, "Melinda and Melinda" has this stench from opening to closing. The set up is one of his more intriguing ideas in a while. Four friends sit in a restaurant discussing whether the essence of life is comedy or drama. To help settle the argument, one man relates the beginning of a story and asks the two other men arguing (one a comic playwright, the other a dramatic playwright) whether the story is a comedy or a tragedy. The two men then continue the story and the movie plays out the stories that they weave. Now, when I first heard about this film, my understanding was that they tell the exact same story, the genre (comedy or drama) only changes by how you look at it. Now that would have been interesting. However, the stories only share one main element and a few side elements. They are entirely different stories with major plot differences. The drama is so stiffly scripted and pretentious that it can only really work as self-parody. If this was the point, then it failed because these elements prevent the audience from feeling any emotional investment in any of the characters. The comedy is the story that has moments of success, but they are still short and fleeting. Will Farrell is obviously meant to be the stand-in for Woody, but he could have played this character so much more believably without adding Woody's stutters and hand-ticks. Woody is the best at being Woody. When someone else tries, they're not playing a character, they are modeling a recognizable actor. This type of thing only pulls the audience out of the story.

My favorite Woody Allen movies make me leave the theater a little bit lighter in spirit than I walked in. This one made me wish I could get my money back.


And how many actors can he get to stand in for his own neurotic, compulsive uber-New Yorker persona? In this film Woody is played by Will Ferrell in what is mercifully less a direct impersonation than the one Kenneth Branagh did in "Celebrity." It's an annoyingly repetitive story now: nebbishy, neurotic man with a wife or girlfriend falls madly in love with a shiksa queen upon which he projects all manner of perfection. Everyone lives in perfect gigantic apartments in great Manhattan neighborhoods, everyone constantly patronizes expensive, exclusive restaurants during which all the characters relate fascinating anecdotes and discuss arcane philosophy, there is always a trip to the Hamptons during which the nebbishy main character spazzes out about sand and physical exertion and possible exposure to diseases, and then of course, said main character feels guilty about his lust for the shiksa queen but pursues her anyway, sometimes succeeding, sometimes failing, etc.

This a tired formula, and proof that Allen isn't really a great film artist at all. He just seems like a dirty old man with the libido and emotions of a 20-year-old who is intent upon telling the same boring old stories again and again.


I am so disappointed. This movie left me feeling jipped out of my time and mental energy. Here was the quintessential Woody Allen film all over again: the neurotic upper-class Manhattanites debating whether or not they will cheat on their spouses. Woody, I've seen these characters already, I've seen the storyline from you ten times already. Where did your creativity go??? You need to open your eyes and look around you. The world has changed dramatically since Annie Hall - and you need to change along with it.

There are far more interesting and funny scenarios to which you can apply your brand of angst and neuroticism - why not try them out instead of rehashing the same old slop over and over and over again.

When I hear that Woody Allen has a new project coming out, it does nothing for me - because now I've come to expect his old standby: the couple who are growing tired of each other and end up cheating. Depressing and same old, same old.

If Woody wants to win his fans back, then he has to understand that our sense of humor and intelligence has to be stimulated - not insulted.


If I accidentally stumbled across this script in textual form i would read it and maybe laugh. I would not, however laugh at the points in the film where the director would seem to want me to laugh. Although I am still not altogether sure where these are. I don't care if this is Woody Allen, this writer cannot write dialogue, or at least he cannot knowingly write dialogue then draw performances from actors capable of drawing laughter from even the most ticklish of clowns. For example:

(paraphrase) "I'm an art historian, i'm looking to get a job in an art gallery."

OK, so it states the fact but honestly, do you know of any art historians who would say that? How would you answer?

"Really? An art gallery? who would've thought it?"

The entire script is littered with the kind of tawdry quasi-intellectualism that i would not have expected from such a respected character writer. I admit that I have no knowledge of Allen's other work and, judging by this one i don't want to start learning. The characters are loathsome without exception, an attempt to illustrate that we all suffer from the human condition? Or really really poor character writing? You be the judge.


I couldn't wait to see this movie. About half way through the movie, I couldn't wait for it to end. All of the (white) actors were delivering their lines like Woody Allen had just said, "Say it like this..." Then they said their lines on screen like they were trying to imitate Woody Allen. It was so annoying. We all know how Will Ferrell really talks, and he doesn't stumble over his words like Mr. Allen. The comedy portion of this film was just as boring as the tragedy and definitely never funny or even entertaining. I must admit that I have never been a major Woody Allen fan, and this movie definitely has not converted me. I think that his writing was just as bad as his direction. This movie will go down as one of the worst 10 movies I have ever seen.


Woody Allen has lost his ability to write dialogue or characters that are clearly distinguishable from each other. This is the case with "Melinda and Melinda," where all the characters speak with Allen's generic pseudo-sophistication and have problems and points of view that are not relatable to anyone outside of a four block radius of where Allen lives. They also share the same curious condition of being able to afford multi-million dollar Manhattan apartments that appear to have been designed by professional decorators regardless of their financial situation or what they do for a living.

The only character who exists outside of this dull mindset is Will Ferrel as the obligatory Woody Allen surrogate. Although he does not simply come off as merely doing a Woody Allen impression (like Kenneth Branagh in the god-awful "Celebrity"), Ferrel lacks the charm or charisma that the real Woody had when he was playing the part himself in his best movies.

The end result is another in a string of self indulgent bores from a once-great filmmaker who has been trading in on his former reputation for years.


For a comedic writer, Woody Allen really lets the paying viewer down with this meager attempt at character development. There are a few entertaining moments, but no more than one would have listening to their dryer tumbling tennis balls.

Will Ferrell wastes his time in this movie which fails to showcase his usually funny delivery. Amanda Peet did well, but again, didn't have the room to move in this otherwise corpse like movie. The movie is so heavy and dull that it cannot be carried but if it were carried, Radha Mitchell did it.

If you enjoy movies that go on and on in one scene and don't really accomplish anything but to show that their writer can write a few lines of snappy dialogue on occasion, then you'll love this movie.


I've always been a great fan of Woody Allen and always will be for most of what he did in the past, but only a blind lover could ignore how dull, meaningless, pretentious and most of all horrendously acted this movie is. A vacuous mental masturbation based on inconsistent grounds. And what a disastrous idea to artificially recreate a presumed "actor Allen-clone", that is putting into Will Farrell's mouth and gestures what Allen would have done in Farrell's place had he been 30 years younger. The outcome was obviously ludicrous. And not to speak of the dialogues... what was intended to be philosophical reflections turned into an involuntary mockery of intellectual pondering, unaware of its comic effect. How sad...


Possible spoilers.

Although there was some good acting - particularly Chloe Sevigny, and Radha Mitchell in the comedy half - this simply was not an engaging film. The segues between the comedy part and the tragedy part were awkward or sometimes not obvious. This viewer was initially confused by the fact that the supporting cast differs in the two halves; I thought with the way things were laid out in the opening scene that the people surrounding Melinda would be the same people, just reacting differently (more of a "He Said, She Said" premise). However, what we have is two totally different stories and two totally different women, both of whom happen to be played by Radha Mitchell.

The two playwrights in the opening scene - the comedian and the tragedian - supposedly take the same premise and go from there, but the two stories are only tenuously related. They do little to support the topic of discussion, which is that almost anything can be looked at as either comedy or tragedy. Nice cast, but a disappointing film.


I've seen my share of Woody Allen's movies, and while they're not always great, you can usually be sure you're going to be entertained. Probably the last really good ones were Bullets Over Broadway ('94) and Mighty Aphrodite ('95) - since then the ones I've seen have been patchy but watchable. And so when I was invited to see the new Woody Allen movie Melinda and Melinda, which I wasn't even aware had been released yet, I went along happily. I hadn't really heard much about it so I hoped I would be pleasantly surprised.

What I got was definitely the worst Woody Allen movie I've seen. The premise is over-explained, the cast is terrible, the script is slow and lifeless. Too many scenes said nothing and yet were stretched out, I assume to fill out what would have otherwise become a 15 minute short film.

I don't mind the concept behind this film - two directors discuss how a simple situation could be interpreted as a comedy or a tragedy, and obviously the film proceeds to show us that, by playing out both scenarios. The problem is neither of these 'two films' are any good at all. The comedy isn't funny and the tragedy isn't very tragic. It seems like Allen came up with a good idea but then ran out of steam, or time, to actually complete the film.

The general level of acting is notably bad also - Will Ferrell is the only one who brings anything to the table, and it's basically a Woody Allen impression. Previously good actors like Chloe Sevigny just come off as annoying, and the worst of the bunch is Radha Mitchell as Melinda (which is a shame, because her character is in nearly every scene!).

To be fair to the actors, the script they are working with is lacking if not non-existent. Definitely a long way from the Allen we know and love from classics like Manhattan or Annie Hall.


Woody Allen has made some of the greatest comedies ever and I would seriously consider saying that Annie Hall is the greatest movie ever but if I really think about it I will probably think of one or two that are better, but it would be hard. He has had of course some films that aren't quite good but not that bad either like Manhattan Murder Mystery and Sweet and Lowdown but he has never before had a film quite as bad as Melinda and Melinda. Not quite so tired and so unfunny, his films are usually witty and hilarious but how did this happen, is it still our good old Woody? The plot runs around four friends who are having dinner together. Two are play writers and one of the others mentions a funny story that happened to a friend of hers. It is about a young woman who bursts in on a dinner party unexpected. We never hear the rest because the two play writes start to debate whether it would make a better comedy or tragedy. Than we begin to see the two points of view. Both center on this woman named Melinda who is having trouble both with drugs and with her ex-husband. In the tragedy she is an old family friend who after attempting suicide decided to show up at her old best friends front door for no apparent reason. The comedy is about Melida who stumbles in on the dinner party after popping 28 sleeping pills. Both go on a wild whirl wind of events that never really make sense or fit together, or make you laugh more than once or twice. There are some nice performances by Radha Mitchell and Will Ferrell but they can't fit it together on there own. They cam't stop it from sinking farther down than most of the other films this year.


Utterly pretentious nonsense. The material is dull, dull, dull, and most of the cast wouldn't even have made understudies in Allen's earlier films. And to have to listen to the unfunny Will Ferrell do his Woody Allen imitation makes me loathe the second-rate (though mysteriously popular) Ferrell even more. It appears that the morose 70-year old Allen should have knocked off work when the clock rang in a new century.

I truly tried to get involved in the film, but it was just impossible; my snyapses couldn't fire that slowly. So, rather than doze off and kill the afternoon sleeping in an upright position I got up, left my wife and daughter in the theater, and went out to the car where I had a really good book to re-read (George Bailey's great tome of 30 years ago, "Germans.") The day turned out pretty well after all, no thanks to Woody.


I will probably always go to see a Woody Alleb movie, as one never knows when he just might make a real return to his past greatness. Just one or two great moments or lines could make it worthwhile. sadly however this film just does'nt make it on any score. Saying thar actually makes me sad and even a little guilty. I'm sure my reaction is much like a lot of other fans of Woody, but what can one say? It's probably time for him to concentrate on his Clarinett, which in my opinion, he is rather quite good. Saying all of this, I'll still probably go to any new film Woody may come out with in the future. There's always hope and I'll continue to love and respect The WOODY!!


This movie stinks! You will want back the two-plus hours it takes to get through it. Sliding Doors, w/ Gwyenth Paltrow and directed by Peter Howit, did what Melinda & Melinda tries to do much much MUCH better. That movie was clever, witty, and well-acted. I cared about what happened to both Gwyenths -- or rather the characters she played -- and the performances by supporting cast were fantastic.

Where as Melinda & Melinda is tiresome, the dialogue is contrived and I could have cared less about any of these people -- least of all Melinda. One Melinda is so dysfunctional -- her first glass of wine is at 10 a.m. -- and so melodramatic she is laughable, and not in the comedic sense. The 2nd Melinda is fine, but forgettable.

Woody Allen's previous ensemble movies worked because, I'm guessing, he spent time on the screenplay and the actors were talented. One piece of trivia for this movie is that he wrote this screenplay in two months: you can tell. And while Chloe Sevigny is talented -- those around her are not, not enough to be a whole presence. The movie ends up being Chloe Sevigny and a bunch of other people you know you've seen in other movies but can't quite remember which ones.

Sad, very sad.


this movie is just an excuse for the writer to make a film out of 2 failed scripts.

its characters are just an assembly of characters with cliché tragic or comic attributes the sum total of which is neurotic dialog like only woody Allen could write. woman love this because its like looking in the mirror so they will enjoy this film probably

this movies was not enjoyed by me however because there was no car chase and also the film didn't have any fights. there was also no drug lords or gang bangers. Not to mention a lack of snakes. This film had no snakes. Not my cup of tea and maybe not yours ether so think about what I have said before you find yourself watching this film.

Unless of course you resemble a female have weight issues man issues enjoy sex and the city and ally mcbeal then this is meaningful for you.


Well I'm blowed, a Woody Allen film that I walked out of after half an hour (I'm aware of the moral fragility of commenting on a film of which I've seen less than half, but I hope you'll understand why). Basically, it became apparent very early on that we were going to be patronised from the screen with: a script that set out its conceit as if with bullet points; a cast that were all trying to be characters from Hannah and Her Sisters (with the exception of Chloe Sevigny), and were badly directed into doing so; and a camera that sat around portentously, only for there to be nothing to film but chat and the actor delivering it. Drama? None; it's partially pre-narrated, but the action does nothing to develop a dramatic situation.

Maybe I did leave too early in this case, but by then I'd decided against another hour and a half of one-liner-Allen clones. The script has its funny moments  I went almost entirely on the back of Will Ferrell's excerpts in the trailer (trailer-hooked again, doh!)  but there's little pace to let them fly off nonchalantly, as is best. Worse than this there's no fluidity. Saying this film's wooden makes a forest look like a jelly: the opening café-bound discussion being the most abject case-in-point. The only thing that should be done by numbers is potted reviewing  2/10.


Perhaps I'm not a sophisticate. This and Closer are two of the more supposedly cerebral films I've seen recently, and both suffer from exactly the same problem to an excruciating extent. The dialogue is false false false. Nothing that comes out of anyone's mouth seems remotely believable. Perhaps the way this film is set up that's the way it's supposed to feel, but it was unwatchable. And boring. I walked out after 20 minutes of tedium.

I'll stick with Sleeper and Bananas for my Woody Allen fix. If I ever come across this on the teevee, I'll turn over and try to find an episode of Quincy instead.


I picked this up at the video store because of Tarantino's recommendation ("If you don't like (this), go f&^% yourself!") on the box... seemed like a ringing endorsement.... I was expecting something a bit more like "Death Proof"... not much actual violence in this one tho, or plot, of character, or dialogue.

Look at the poster. It's all there. Stunts, and rock. It goes back and forth. A week or so in the life of an LA band that does a crappy magic show, at a level that you'd maybe see in one of the lesser casinos off the Strip, and an Aussie stuntman new in town finding his feet... They work, they meet girls, they party. End of story.

The band obviously needed all that stuff because they are frankly second-tier, and playing a style that was already dated in 1978. It has to be said that the stunt bits in the film are genuinely spinetingling - that Aussie fellow really is something, and the film seems largely motivated by love and respect for the "art". I hung it there to see what crazy thing he'd do next. Just wish he could have found a better vehicle.


East Palace, West Palace reminded me somewhat of The Detective, with Frank Sinatra in the role of the cop, and William Windom is the boy. It's a progressive film for China, I guess, but it also perpetuates myths about the femininity of gay men: much is made of Chinese myths in which men take on female roles. The movie focuses on an effeminate man who wants desperately to be dominated and hurt by a macho guy. He cruises the park without fear--he hopes to be taken into the stationhouse by the officer. And that in fact happens. Then he tells the officer his entire life story while being subjected to mild torture: made to squat for a period of time, handcuffed, slapped. This is what the gay man wants, and, implicitly, the gay man is challenging the cop's self-image as a manly man. The story's about the gay man's life (which include flashbacks) are tolerable, but when he starts describing old Chinese myths and dramatic works, the movie becomes unbearable. It becomes a cry of pity for China's gays, who only want to fulfill a traditional role in Chinese society. Sorry, I can't relate.


This is the kind of movie i fear the most. Arrogant and Irresponsible, it presents a sketch of the colombian conflict so cliched and dumb it represents an insult to all Colombian people. The performances are godawul, from Grisales (her naked scene is absolutely pitiful), to Bejarano, to Fanny Mickey (who looks right out of a Tim Burton nightmare), to Díaz, who makes a notable effort to bring life to a character so one-dimensional, so cliched and so badly written all he´s left to work with is a mustache. Not to mention the gratuitous ending, a gore fest so cheesy that it would make Ed Wood cringe. It fails in all ways, cinematography, art direction, costumes, makeup, editing, and most of all directing, Jorge Alí Triana has always been a lousy filmmaker but at least his previous movies had some dignity. I can't say anything good about this waste of money, except that i hope Colombian filmmakers learn a lesson about honesty, integrity and responsability from this mean-intended fiasco.


All of David Prior's movies are terrible on all counts: bad writing, bad acting, bad cinematography, no budget (the director's brother is usually cast as the male lead). But they all have incredible entertainment value because of their unintentional hilarity. The plot of almost every David Prior "film" (as I like to refer to them) is basically the same. Manly all-American commandos team up to blow up Communist baddies. But unlike other Cold War-era garbage such as Red Dawn, Prior's movies are actually funny because of their over-the-top premises and acting. The best part of Jungle Assault is the scene in which Becker (or was is the other dude?) is being summoned by General Mitchell for a top-secret mission in South America. The funniest line in the movie is then delivered, something to the effect of "this is my roommate, I trained him well". WHAT. You trained your roommate? And apparently this is going to be their solution to avoiding eviction.

If you can find these gems on video used anywhere, BUY THEM. They are all funny and even funnier after a few beers. Watch them with a group of your friends for a true MST3K-style experience. So far my friends and I have managed to get a hold of Night Wars and Aerobicide aka "Killer Workout". But the one I recommend the most over them all is Final Sanction, with the freakish-looking Robert Z'dar.


Imagine the worst A-team episode Add even more bad taste Remove humor and you might get an idea of how despicable this movie is ! Looks like a teenager stole Daddy's Camcorder and filmed the explosion of his little sister Barbie model house. Pathetic.


This one features all the (bad) effect of Prior's cheap-o movies, but is so overtly racist, nasty and unpleasant that it is difficult to give this piece of dreck any redeeming feature. Unless you plan to enlist in the Marines, skip this one. Oh, and even if you do, avoid it at all costs.


Updating of the Bliss theme is merely the latest in a lengthening queue of bad-to-average local comedies which appeal to the conservative cinema-going set. (For the record, this list, all of the films on which appear to be attempting a Castle-esque miracle, includes, Strange Bedfellows, Thunderstruck, Bad Eggs, The Honourable Wally Norman, Horseplay, The Wannabes and The Nugget. The only one to have worked has been Crackerjack.)

Here, the performances never mesh, as John Howard doesn't even look like he's in the right film  though perhaps that was the intention, as Franklin plays sleepy, conservative suburbia against its more interesting inhabitants. 20-year-old virgins who live with their parents are becoming rarer on-screen, but this is hardly a reason to watch the film. In fact, the only reasons may well be (1) Howard's bizarre  but quite fun  performance, and (2) the 'suburban nightmare' theme, which has run through Somersault, Strange Bedfellows, Tom White, Alexandra's Project, Danny Deckchair, The Rage in Placid Lake, Traveling Light, Teesh & Trude, Swimming Upstream and Lantana, many of which are very good/excellent. Enter at own risk! May be one for people who titter at the word 'penis'. 4/10.


It is a real shame that nearly no one under 30 knows the "over the top" writing of Michael O'Donoghugh- magazine articles and SNL skits that were genius for the time...and so it is a true shame that anyone who may take the opportunity to research his work will no doubt take the easy way out and watch videos- thus leading them to MR MIKES MONDO VIDEO.

This movie has clever elements that never fully connect to the funny bone. The viewer experiences such things as cat diving/swimming with the man who thinks he's found feline happiness by hurling these kittens into a pool which the camera follows in slow motion and montage sequence. Then we are taken to an island to where all past fads are retired (hula hops, pet rocks, rainbow dread wigs etc.) Then we enter the music world (punk was a new variety of music at the time of this film) where "D" rate bar performer Rootboy Slim performs "boogie till you puke" in his own lazy style of dirt and eclectic sleaze. Now the real beauty of all this is the back ground music. In many different styles with many different instruments the sound of TELSTAR plays and replays- for those who don't understand Telstar was the first American Satellite launched into space and the theme was created to celebrate mans genius and triumph. MR MIKES seems to have been meant as a signal of societal decay ridiculous wastes. Now one thing the theater offered that the video release does not was a live performance of Sid Vicious (ex sex pistol not the wrestler) singing MY WAY. His version is very different than Sinatras as one might imagine but frankly I feel it is very much worth the listen...it's good! That is the sad part- in the VHS release Paul Anka refuses the rights of his song and the viewer is forced to experience 3 1/2 minutes of silence with an explanation rolling across the image of the singing dead sex pistol.

I would give the theater release a 5 or 6 the video is closer to a 4 and now that so much is passé I can see where many people would give it a 3 or 2.5. If you want to see a good O'Donoghugh script watch SCROOGED...it is a better tribute to the mans insight and talent.


I saw this movie in 1979, I was 17 or 18, when it was released. The theater was perhaps 1/4 full when the movie started. Ten minutes into the movie me and the friend who went with me to see the film were the only two people in the theater. The movie was really weird and had no plot or reason to its script and people demanded their money back. We decided to stay for the ENTIRE movie.... why endure such torture??... here's why. We wanted to be true movie critics... to have a standard to base all other movies on it is hard to justify saying you have seen the best movie (a 10)they always come up with something better. But, it is easy to be able to base all other movies off of the worst movie ever made (and this is it... a 1 at best). There may be other movies out there that truly qualify as a 1, but I have yet to see them. I now base all movies I see on a scale based on this worst....I AM A TRUE MOVIE CRITIC...he he.


I actually saw this movie at a theater. As soon as I handed the cashier my money, she said two words I had never heard at a theater, before or since: "No refunds!" As soon as I heard those words, I should have just waved bye-bye to my cash and gone home. But no, foolishly, I went in and watched the movie. This movie didn't make ANYONE in the theater laugh. Not even once. Not even inadvertantly! Mostly, we sat there in stunned silence. Every ten minutes or so, someone would yell "This movie SUCKS!" The audience would applaud enthusiastically, then sit there in stunned, bored silence for another ten minutes.


I looked forward to seeing this movie when it came out, since I was a huge SNL fan. When my boyfriend and I went to see it, the people coming out of the early show were yelling, "Don't waste your money!" But of course we had to find out for ourselves.

While there were a few funny bits (Laser Bra 2000, Root Boy Slim), most of it felt like it could have been severely edited down to an amusing 1 hour show. It was pretty bad.

When the opera singer came on, many people got up and walked out. This made me laugh, because I realized that O'Donoghue was just pressing people's buttons on purpose with this movie. Or else he was just insane. Whatever - you don't need to waste your time watching it, it's that bad.


Mr. Mike was probably the most misanthropic comedian of all time, so I was interested to see what he'd do with total creative control over a movie. Sadly, it is unwatchable, though not because the jokes aren't funny--some (I won't say most) of them are, and in fact Mr. Mike did a good job translating his mentally unbalanced screeds into visual gags. The trouble is that the technical quality (sets, lighting, sound, editing, you name it) is so God-awful, the movie is intolerable. Some outfit called "PKO Productions" gets the producing credit, but it doesn't look produced at all; it looks more like Mike stole one of the cameras from the SNL set and made the whole thing in an afternoon. I realize Mike's goal was to torture the audience, but even that deserves some basic standards, such as the ability to actually see, hear or comprehend whatever it is that's supposed to be shocking. Still, the DVD isn't a total waste: it includes a eulogy for O'Donoghue by Bill Murray and three "Mr. Mike's Least Loved Bedtime Stories" from SNL. Plus, the "cat swimming" section of the movie is a great scene to be caught watching if you want to freak someone out. 3/10


If you enjoy the original SNL cast and shows then avoid this movie at all costs. When this first came out my friends and I waited in line for over an hour to get in to a sold out movie house. half way through the movie the theatre was 3/4 empty. We refused to leave thinking it would get better. When the movie ended we were the only ones left in the theatre. The movie lasted only one day in all theaters then vanished from sight. In interviews with "Mr. Mike" he refused to comment on this film. The film was an inside joke on the episodes of SNL that came out right after the films release and closing in one day. We all tried to contact "Mr. Mike" by phone and mail to get a refund but were totally ignored.


I saw this cinematic wretchedness in a dollar theater with a friend in 1979 (back when the tickets actually sold for $1). This is the only film I have ever walked out on (with my friend, while the idiocy that is the "Laser Bra 2000" sketch was on screen). Evidently, my and my friend's reaction to the film was a common one. It is not that I found the film offensive (either as an 18-year-old or now), but rather that it is mind-numbingly stupid and patently unfunny, devoid even of the unintended humor that makes a Ed Wood film watchable. This is the real reason why NBC refused to air it, rather than a failure to comprehend Mr. Mike's "vision" (unless, of course, his vision was to drive the film's backers into bankruptcy).

I remained surprised to this day that this film does not seem to have made any published "10 worst films of all time" list. It certainly makes mine. You have been warned.


Why does this movie fall WELL below standards? Ultimately, the answer lies in the poor, humourless script. A slim/average looking Travolta (looking rather dapper in black I must say, even with a HUGE mullet) and Gross both act very well as two young-ish 'slick-dressed' but nevertheless dimwitted New Yorkers eager to open their own nightclub. Other than that, the rest of the film is just boring to watch. It is SO dull that it's really not worth knowing what happens in the film's climax on any level. Kelly Preston obviously exudes sex appeal and the sexually charged dance with her husband-to-be Travolta is one of the film's few pleasures. Charles Martin Smith is quite fun to watch as struggling KGB honcho "Bob Smith". Personally, I think the movie would have been better if the plot was altered a little so that the settings did not change from NY to 'Indian Springs, Nebraska' (which is in the former Soviet Union?)--you'll understand if you see the movie... Apparently, this movie was filmed in 1986 ready for a 1987 release. I guess Paramount stalled on releasing the movie until January 1989 because of the unbelievable plot. It was reported they deemed it "unreleasable". Nevertheless, this $6,000,000 film garnered a little over an embarrassing $163,000 in revenue as it was released only BRIEFLY in places like Texas and Colorado before heading straight-to-video. This is testament to the overall BAD quality of this movie.


I thought this film would be a lot better then it was. It sounded like a spoof off of the spy gener, and the start of it reminded me of Pleasantvil, but this film came up short.

The plot is just to ridiculous. The KGB and Soviet Union in Russia have started up a spy school to teach their spies' how to act like Americans, but the town they set up in it for training is a bit dated, so they grab two yanks from the US to spice things up. I don't know, but this seems just to out there. It gets really odd when next to no one in this all Russian town speaks in a Russian accent. Someone screwed up in the casting job.

Also, for a comedy this is painfully dry. There is one, two funny spots tops, and they are nothing to sing and dance about. The film in the end will likely put you to sleep.

And, as a twisted punch in the face, this film is so pro the US it makes me sick. The movie keeps on saying again and again, the US is God and Russia is the devil. This is the kind of smear campaign that was done against the Japanese in World War 2. It's films like these that makes everyone think that the US is full of itself.

This gets a 4 out of 10, and I'm being kind. It should really get a one, but the dance scene was funny, but then again it dragged far to long to be really funny.


If you're in the mood for some dopey light entertainment, this will pass the time. If you expect one jot of plausibility, don't bother. To me, the dance scene looked like it was exaggerated for comic effect; it didn't look especially hot or skilled.


One of the five worst movies I have ever watched. And I'm not exaggerating. In fact, I recommend watching it so you can get the same feeling of incredulity as you might by watching Showgirls.

Out of 400 votes, the movie gets a user rating of 5.3/10. But there is a disproportionate number of voters who gave it a 10/10, probably due to the message of the movie - nuclear weapons are the bane of mankind. Chuck Murdock is an all-star little league pitcher who gives up baseball because there are nuclear weapons. Soon "Amazing Grace" Smith is an all-star Boston Celtic who is inspired by Chuck's story and gives up basketball. Soon all sports leagues from the professional level to college to high school to little league dismantle in a world-wide protest. Later all the children of the world go on a silence strike. This inspires the President of the United States to meet with the Soviet Premier, who in time agree to eliminate all nuclear weapons in time for the start of the next Little League season. The movie ends with Chuck about to throw out the first pitch, with the President telling his new best friend Chuck not to worry about striking out every batter, as he hasn't thrown a baseball in a year.

Somewhere along the line a nefarious underworld boss kills Amazing Grace. When the President finds out he is told that the FBI can verify the killer but will never be able to prove it. So the President calls the underworld boss ("But it's one a.m." "I don't care, get him on the line") and tell him that he is to resign from all company boards that he sits on and sell all stocks that he has. And to not get out of line again.

Honestly, this movie was so crappy that I couldn't turn it off. It was on television from 2:30 am to 4:00 am, and I watched it all. I wasn't turned off by the anti-nuclear weapons propaganda. I was turned off by the implausible break down of all organized sports. I don't even understand why "Amazing Grace" Smith was killed. And with all these famous athletes becoming Chuck's friends, why the father was constantly upset with his son taking a principled stand. And there was the cliché moment near the end when dad tells Chuck, "I never told you this, but I'm proud of you." Cue hug.


I spent eight years running movie theatres in the 80's and 90's. This was, by far, the worst film I ever showed to the public. One thing that made it so bad was that it put on airs of trying to be a great, inspiring film. Even the great Gregory Peck could not save this horrid piece of drivel from being far less than mediocre. Jamie Lee Curtis, in an early non-horror film role, demonstrated clearly that she had not yet learned to act (she's still trying, but it isn't getting much better).

I'm sorry, and here's the spoiler, international nuclear disarmament is never going to happen just because it makes children afraid to play little league baseball! Even the shows on Nick and The Disney Channel are not stupid enough to try to make us believe that dreck.

This is not worth the time you would waste watching it on cable TV. It is not worth the price of a movie rental; your dollar would be better spent on an extra package of microwave popcorn to go with the other movie you picked (because it can only be better than this).


This movie is a bad memory from my childhood. This is one of those movies that they show kids on a rainy day at school when you can't go out for recess, and you'd rather be watching anything, ANYTHING else. At least that's what it was like when I was in elementary school. I just remember HATING this movie. Granted, I haven't seen it in 15 years or so, and they probably don't use it on rainy days anymore but I just want to warn everyone: You'd be better off using this to put your kids to sleep than entertaining them. Trust me, pick anything else. Even though the topic is kind of controversial, the plot is so tame and slow that I can't remember anything about it except that I disliked it so strongly that here, 15 years later, I felt the need to warn all of you against it.


This was among the STUPIDEST and PREACHIEST of the anti-nuke films out of the 1980s.

The idea that a kid and a basketball star could "change the world" is pretty far-fetched, given how many "children's peace marches" and "celebrity protests" there were and ARE.

But the idea that the Soviet Union would agree to a TOTAL nuclear disarmament, because some apparatchik kids learned of a "silent protest" in the West, is ludicrous.

What ended the Cold War? America's tough, dare I say "Reaganesque" stance and the internal failures of socialism. It was NOT the peace marches, the "die-ins" or films like "Amazing Grace & Chuck", "Miracle Mile", or "Testament".


I can't imagine anyone would ever, in a million years, want to watch this movie. Not because it was one of the worst ever made (it wasn't), but largely because it's about 20 years old and oh-so-out of the mainstream. I was trying to find out where I saw an actor before and this popped up. So, yeah, a kid stops playing little league because he doesn't like nukes, this prompts major media attention and a quick resolution to the cold war. The end. A fantasy, to be sure, but one so cockeyed it would make John Lennon blush. Since terrorism has replaced communism as the -ism that scares the hell out of us, this movie really has no relevance, except as an (innaccurate) look back at those times. The writing, acting, and film craft are similarly undeveloped. The reason I rated it as highly as I did was because I watched this movie around 50 times while I was 5-6 years old and still have a little place in my heart for it, but I now realize that it doesn't quite cut mustard. So, if the law of large numbers holds true and someone eventually does decide to check out this movie, realize that there are much better ways to spend your time, but also much worse ones. (I will refrain from a John Q. tirade for now.)


I saw this in the summer of 1990. I'm still annoyed by how bad this movie is in 2001.

Implausible plot. You'd have to be a child to think this could happen.

I'm just really annoyed by it. Don't see this.


This film reminds me of how college students used to protest against the Vietnam War. As if, upon hearing some kids were doing without cheeseburgers in Cow Dung Collehe, the President was going to immediately change all US foreign policy.

The worst thing is that, while dangerous, the concept of a policy based on if the USSR and US went to war it could mean the end of the world, WORKED. The US and USSR NEVER WENT TO WAR.

Had we only conventional weapons, the notion of yet another war, a "win-able" war, in Europe and Asia was not unthinkable.

Not that I think they should get rid of this movie. It should be seen by film students as a splendid example of "How NOT to make a film."

It should be 0 stars or maybe black holes...


I've no idea what dimwit from San Francisco came up with this stupid plot, but apparently they need to get off whatever drugs they are taking and put their analyst on danger money -- NOW.

Yeah, this is a plausible story, if you regard the alien abduction sequence in "Life of Brian" as plausible.

This film is little more than a leftist pipedream. Had the US and USSR give up nuclear weapons, the result would've been to eliminate the only real obstacle that kept the two from engaging in a war. Bad as Korea, Vietnam and other wars of the era were, they were "proxy wars" fought to keep the superpowers from a direct engagement.

This film makes me think about how realistic it was when some group of high school kids would go on a hunger strike against nuclear proliferation. As if someone would say "Mr. President, some kids at Drastic High are not eating!" and Ronald Reagan would reply "My God! I'd better revise my Defense policy!" Right.

Like this film? Wouldn't it be better if the Soviet Union would've collapsed because they could not support their massive arms build... wait, that happened!


A film like Amazing Grace and Chuck is a perfect example of how the left in this country just doesn't get it. They never did. And liberalism continues to slip further and further into political oblivion.

This film deals with a little league baseball star who decides to stop playing ball as a protest to the existence of nuclear weapons. The boy is understandably ridiculed until a bevy of professional athletes, led by former NBA star Alex English, join his cause. Not just a few of them join the cause. By the time his movement reaches its zenith, entire leagues of professional and college sports have to cancel their seasons since nobody will play any more. Just to move this review along, I'm prepared to grant them this premise. Even though it would never happen in a million years, I'll just imagine it could, then go from there.

I don't quite remember how, but some type of agreement is reached, and the boy decides to go back to the game he loves in an incredibly sappy and ridiculous scene.

Before criticizing the message of this film, let me just say that this film is poorly written, acted and directed. Even if one does agree with the boy's stance, it would be impossible to overcome how badly the film was constructed. And that's a shame since there are plenty of good actors that go to waste. (Peck, Curtis, Petersen). Alex English does as well as he could have with his character however, and I wish he would try to act in more films. Alas, it's likely much easier to find work in the coaching world of the NBA. One wishes Mr. English would teach more of these thuggish NBA types of today how to shoot the rock a little better. Alex certainly knew how to put the ball through the hoop.

As far as the film's message in concerned, it's just wrong-headed. Plain and simple. All of those nuclear warheads tucked away in those missile silos out west PREVENTED WAR!!!!! It would be one thing for this boy and his flock to protest an actual war or the USE of nuclear weapons. These weapons were in fact never used, and that was the genius behind their existence. Neither side during the cold war was crazy enough to fire a single missile. Without these weapons, who knows what might have happened between the USA and USSR.

The makers of this film obviously intended for kids in America to take up their cause and follow in Chuck's footsteps. Kids in America however are more intelligent than the left wing kooks who created this dreck.

The film is worth only 2 of 10 stars.

If you want to see a great film about the dangers of nuclear war, stick with Dr. Strangelove, instead.

Mr. Newell, you are no Frank Capra!


This sleek, sexy movie is a must-see. Only upon multiple viewings can one truly understand the uniqueness of this film. Personally I enjoy the narrator for his intelligent, no subject left untouched, style of narration. The introduction grips you right away, and holds you at the edge of your seat throughout the film. He provides wonderful insight into the world of the trainables and allows the audience to really 'connect' with internal horror this film exhibits. The script itself holds the movie together wonderfully. Not only for kids, but the elderly alike will gain a higher understanding of the trainables and the modern grasp that they have on the sexual experience. Ahead of its time and groundbreaking in cinematography, it surely defines the word 'masterpiece'.


I love Seth Green. His appearances on THat 70s' Show is always worth watching but last night, I felt the show needed to overhauled. Four single young guys inherit a New York City apartment that most of us would die for. The grandmother must have been an heiress to have such space in the first place. So I felt the need for realism should have been brought out. Anyway the plot about four best friends getting this apartment was not believable. I would have been thrilled if they had to move in with one of their parents which would have provided great humor and dysfunctional about the show's set up. There did not seem to be much humor in it. I am only watching it because it falls before My Name is Earl on a winning Thursday night. I think they should go back, scrap this series, and start over. We need more family involved series. How about Seth and his friends move in with his wacky parents in the suburbs after a fire burns their place down. THey could have Dabney Coleman play the father and Christine Estabrook, play the mother and dysfunctional siblings. The list of possibilities with somebody like Seth Green are endless and the network is blowing it.


Well it's not often that we in the UK have a film made about inner city life from the perspective of the Afro Caribbean community, the last example that I can remember was the underrated Babylon way back in 1980. So I had high expectations when I heard about Bullet Boy, a film that has been touted as the British version of La Haine! Well La Haine it is not! I agree that the use of dialogue and environment gives this film an authenticity that has been missed in other British films of late, but my concern is that this film predictably ends sadly.

The film intelligently deals with the escalating problem of black on black violence that is sadly all to common in London, but I'm concerned that film makers now use type-casting in plot as opposed to characters which is equally as damaging. Saul Dibb had a great opportunity to make a film that could be both entertaining and inspirational to us all, but sadly missed and created a film that only reinforces the idea that to be a young black male in London the only future is violence & tragedy


Over the last 20 years the majority of British films are about how horribly poverty stricken the UK is and how our youth doesn't stand a chance of a good life whilst they live on the mean streets of British cities. The British film industry is obsessed with the idea of 'broken Britain'. Trainspotting, This is England, Kidulthood, Football Factory, Kes and From London to Brighton.

Bullet Boy is just another British movie added to that list. The main character expresses a desire to go straight yet he still insists on hanging around with dead beats who carry guns and fight with gang members over nothing. I was never convinced that he did want to go straight as there was nothing stopping him pursuing an education or a trade. In fact it would have been a breath of fresh air if he had of gone straight and we had a character who turned his life around. Instead he spends his time helping his friend trying to commit murder. I felt no sympathy when he is predictably shot by another teen at the end of the film, which is sad because at the beginning of the film I really liked the entire family and their desire for success. I believe the makers missed a great chance to show the world that success belongs to those who are willing to really strive for it (like the Pursuit of Happiness).

I know the purpose of this film was to try and paint a realistic picture of what life is like for black teens living in working class areas of Britain but don't we already have enough films in the UK with that very same plot? Isn't it time these talented producers and writers give Britains youth something to aspire to and show them a better life is just around the corner?

I applaud the makers of Bullet Boy for not loading the film full of mindless violence in order to try and get success through shock factors (like Kidulthood, Football Factory) but at the same time this movie offers nothing new to a long list of British films that are effectively dull and depressing to watch. There is no happy ending to this movie or any of the others I have mentioned.


It's a bad, very bad movie.

Well, for people a real realistic movie is a good thing. For me it is not. Life is also predictable, bad, nasty, trivial, senseless, sometimes. Maybe that's the reason for people say that this film is real.

Too many common places: you're black, you're a criminal, you're doomed and cursed, whatever you do you'll end up by shooting or being shot by someone; don't let the kids play with the weapons, it could be dangerous; and then there are those who go to the church, and then they are good, very good...

Before this one, I hadn't seen such a bad movie. That's perhaps the reason for I never noticed how important the photography itself is important in a movie. In this one, every scene shot in daytime, outdoor, is clearly and annoyingly blue. They didn't even care to correct the colour balance. Oh! I've "rated" more than 300 movies in this database so far, and this (3/10) is my lowest ever.


I watched this movie last night and was a bit disappointed. A lot of the "time facts" were off. At the beginning of the movie, the grandfather made a comment to this grandson and his friends about how they felt when 9-11 hit. This movie was supposed to be taking place in 1994. Also, one of the grandsons friends was wearing an Eagles Donovan McNabb jersey. He hadn't even been drafted as of yet. The story line was good but the facts and actuality of the time frame was so far off base that it made the movie seem cheesy. My boyfriend is an avid reader of WWII books and memorabilia. I rented this movie hoping that it would be good. The acting was so-so. The dog was cute. But the way that this movie was carried out made me glad that I only paid 4 dollars to rent it as opposed to the 50 it would have taken me to watch it in a theater. I hope that who ever reads this understands that I mean no discontent to those who fought the war but the facts and time frame should have been a little more closely monitored.


This movie had good intentions and a good story to work with. The director and screenwriter of this movie failed miserably and created a dull, boring filmstrip that made me feel like I was back in Mr. Hartford's 8th grade Social Studies class -- way back in 67.

What a waste, will somebody please take this story and make a real movie out of it - the story deserves it.

Every time a scene had potential, all we were left with were a few clichés, combined with black and white footage that they probably got from The History Channel to show the action. Shameful.

Ossie Davis was the only bright light in this dull fest. The other acting was incredibly dull - it fit in with the movie well and whomever played the Captain set a new low standard for line delivery.

However, if you are willing to accept all the numerous flaws in this movie and aren't concerned with being awed or entertained, but want to learn about the USS Mason, it is worth a watch.


Full marks for the content of this film, as a Brit I was not aware that there was segregation in the US Navy during WWII. A very brave attempt to bring this fact to the world. However, the movie is pathetic, direction is non existent, the acting is wooden and the script is just one cliché after another. I can honestly say that this is one of the worst movies I have ever seen. I sat and cringed from the start until the end at the very poor way that this had been put together. This could have been a great movie, the story for many of us outside of the US was new, unique and also interesting. The sad fact of the matter is the way that it was put together. It is unfortunate that a true story like this, which could have changed people's attitudes, has been squandered on a low budget, badly directed movie. I only hope that some time in the future, one of the major studios will take this theme and do it justice.


I will give it a 3 just because it showed history that we need to know about, to prevent it from happening again. I agree with the comments from the gentleman from UK. The movie was pretty terrible. All cliché, no real plot. Historical and technical inaccuracies abound. Look up the technical specs on DE 529, or any Everts class Destroyer Escort, and you will see what I mean. I now its black history month in the US, and Im going to be called a racist just for saying this, but the history of this ship is not that great. They did some escort work, chased a "submarine" that turned out to be a hulk that they rammed. Sorry, but black people did a lot more in WWII then this silly movie gives them credit for. This movie makes them look like whiners. Let the name calling commence, I can handle it.


Working at a video store I get to see quite a few movies and on occasion I try to watch some of the not so big movies. Proud happened to be one of them. The initial idea of telling of the story of a primarily black crewed ship during WWII had some merit. However in less than 10 minutes of watching the movie you find out that the primary point of the movie was to tell about racial tension in WWII. The underlying story is about the ship, the crew and their exploits in the war. This primary point is hammered at you to the point of excessiveness all throughout the movie. I commend the men that served on the USS Mason for their triumph in the face of adversity and for the hardships that they endured. A movie should have been made focusing on the accomplishments these men did for themselves, the Navy and for their country and not making a movie whose focus is racism during WWII.


This is a great story and was just the beginning of equality in the United States. (We are still working on it too.) However despite the fact this is true, it's still a movie and this is a movie site. I realize independent films have a hard time getting good actors, but wow. The only one even mediocre is the excellent Ossie Davis. But even he couldn't make up for all the actors (including the one playing him as a young man) absolutely atrocious acting. Granted the script was terribly cliché, but even then you have got to get some decent actors! I wouldn't recommend this to anybody because it is so poorly done in every category. Read some books about the true story of the U.S.S Mason, because they give these men the respect they deserve.


As a WWII naval history buff, and someone who is not proud of this country's history of race relations, I was looking forward to seeing this movie. What a disappointing piece of schlock. I made it about 3/4 of the way through, but I should have turned it off at the sub attack scene. The idea that a U-boat would fire a torpedo at a DDE, as if there was a hope of hitting it, and then be able to "run away" from the DDE while submerged, is preposterous. And that's just a small detail. The whole movie was poorly written, poorly directed, and poorly acted. I agree with others on this board that this could have been a good movie. It's as if they decided that, since all those crappy WWII propaganda films were made with all-white casts, they needed to make one with black people. And as bad as those old movies were, this is actually worse. And it almost smacks of false advertising to headline Ossie Davis and Stephen Rea. It turns out they had very minor roles. I have to believe those two fine actors were embarrassed to be associated with this film. I'm done. I've given way too much of my life this crap movie.


I had high hopes for this film. I thought the premise interesting. I stuck through it, even though I found the acting, save Helena Bonham Carter, unremarkable. I kept hoping my time spent would pay off, but in the end I was left me wondering why they even bothered to make this thing. Maybe in George Orwell's version there is a message worth conveying. If this film accomplished anything, it has inspired me to read Orwell's classic. I find it hard to believe his tale could be as disappointing as this adaption. If the film maker's message is "the mundane life is worth living", well then, they've succeeded. I would recommend this film to no one; 101 minutes of my life wasted.


The British 'heritage film' industry is out of control. There's nothing wrong with filming classic novels, but why must they all be filmed by talentless nobodies? This film rips the guts out of Orwell's tough novel, turning it into a harmless, fluffy romantic comedy. 'Aspidistra' may not be Orwell's best work, but no-one who reads it can forget its superb depiction of poverty. Orwell emphasises not only the cold and the hunger, but the humiliation of being poor. In the novel, London is a bleak, grey, cold, heartless city, and Comstock prays for it to be blasted away by a squadron of bombers. But this film irons out anything that might be in any way disturbing, and creates instead a jolly nostalgic trip to charming 1930s London, in which everything is lit with shafts of golden sunlight, and even the slums of Lambeth are picturesque and filled with freshly scrubbed urchins and happy prostitutes. Comstock's poems about the sharp wind sweeping across the rubbish-strewn streets seem completely out of place in this chocolate-box world. Worst of all is the script's relentless bonhomie, ancient jokes, and clunking dialogue. It's so frustrating because Richard E. Grant is the perfect person to play Gordon Comstock, and the film is packed with great actors. But it's all for nothing. This film made me so angry! Britain's literary history is something to be proud of for its richness, complexity and power. And what do we do with it? We employ bland nobodies to turn it into soft-centred, anodyne pap for people who want to feel that they are 'getting some culture' while they drink their Horlicks and quietly doze off.