Utter dreck. I got to the 16 minute/27 second point, and gave up. I'd have given it a negative number review if that were possible (although 'pissible' is a more fitting word...). Unlike the sizzle you could see and practically feel between MacMurray and Stanwyck in the original, the chemistry between dumb ol' Dicky Crenna and whats-her-face here is just non-existent. The anklet becomes an unattractive chunky bracelet? There's no ciggy-lighting-by-fingertip? And I thought I'd be SICK when they have a mortified-looking (and rightly so, believe you me) Lee J. Cobb as Keyes practically burping/upchucking his way through the explanation of his "Little Man" to Mr. Garloupis. No offence to the non-sighted, but it looks as though a posse of blind men ran amuck with the set design of both the Dietrichson and Neff houses. The same goes for those horrid plaid pants that Phyllis wears. And crikey, how much $$ does Neff make, that he lives overlooking a huge marina? This, folks, again, all takes place in the first 16 and a half minutes. If you can get through more of it, you have a much stronger constitution than me, or you are a masochist. But please, take some Alka-Seltzer first, or you WILL develop a "little man" of your own that may never go away. Proceed with caution, obviously.


As a big fan of the original film, it's hard to watch this show. The garish set decor and harshly lighted sets rob any style from this remake. The mood is never there. Instead, it has the look and feel of so many television movies of the Seventies. Crenna is not a bad choice as Walter Neff, but his snappy wardrobe and "swank" apartment don't fit the mood of the original, or make him an interesting character.He does his best to make it work but Samantha Egger is a really bad choice. The English accent and California looks can't hold a candle to Barbara Stanwick's velvet voice and sex appeal. Lee J.Cobb tries mightily to fashion Barton Keyes,but even his performance is just gruff, without style.

It feels like the TV movie it was and again reminds me of what a remarkable film the original still is.


Murder and insurance fraud take an adulterous couple to "the end of the line"...

TV was visually vulgar back in the early 1970s and this truncated, made-for-TV knock-off hurt my eyes. It can't possibly compare to the 1944 Billy Wilder Film Noir classic as anyone in their right mind ought to know -sight unseen- but that doesn't mean this update should be seen as a separate entity, either. Although based on the original Paramount screenplay, there's over half an hour cut out and the director's bland indifference makes what's left imminently forgettable. With rare exception, the younger generation wasn't interested in watching old black and white movies on TV back in 1973 (still true today, alas) so this lurid, compelling tale was new to the overwhelming majority of viewers; then as now, ratings rule and cashing in was its only reel raison d'etre. Gus Van Zandt remade Alfred Hitchcock's PSYCHO for similar reasons and if these redux led to the seeking out of the original films or novels, so much the better. I loved the James M. Cain source novel enough to tune in back then and I enjoyed this time capsule curio the second time around for the longish hair, halter tops, turbans, ugly decor, and lush auburn locks of "guest star" Samantha Eggar, who didn't try too hard. In addition to recognizing a few of the incidental cast from a childhood spent in front of the boob tube, Lee J. Cobb was able to hold my interest as a world-weary, tired-looking Keyes but Richard Crenna's affable and inoffensive Walter Neff only reminded me of Bill Bixby on a bad day. Improvement upon the original was, of course, never intended in a rush to make a buck but, instead of a mindless retread, a new adaptation of the novel would have been a novel idea. Cain's book differs somewhat from its celluloid incarnations and the horrific shark fins in the moonlight ending is killer. The completist in me is thankful this speeded up "Me Decade" update was included as part of the DOUBLE INDEMNITY DVD extras but the experience not only made me long to see the original, it had me nostalgic for any episode of the better-made COLUMBO TV series. I also flashed back to a very good 1973 ABC TV Movie Of The Week that I haven't seen since its initial airing: John D. Macdonald's LINDA starring the beautiful Stella Stevens as a ruthless femme fatale who murders her lover's (sexy John Saxon) wife and then frames her mild-mannered husband for the crime and, if I remember correctly, there's also an open-ended ending. Like DOUBLE INDEMNITY, it was needlessly remade with TV movie queen Virginia Madsen as the titular vixen and Richard Thomas as the milquetoast husband.


This could have been a good episode but I simply had to turn it off. The British representation was horrible to watch. Have the makers ever set foot in Britain prior to filming? At least set foot in England?? I don't think any British person have had such an accent apart from a comedy skit of The Royal Family! Also with the 2 English boys... well I don't think any English boy has acted, spoke or dressed like any English kid in the history of the British nation since Prince William and Harry's preteen public appearances. To American film makers.. There is more than 1 country in the UK. England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.. meaning more than 1 culture! I can handle some stereotyping but this was so bad I could not watch it. Fire looked cool though!


I watched Phat Beach on cable for a while and I sort of enjoyed it. The fat guy is the best character, as he seems to be a nice guy. The rest of the characters are just various stereotypes of young men and young black men. I like to watch these low budget movies that capture a period of time because they are almost like a documentary of the year's attitudes and fads. Phat Beach is also funny because the low-budget babes in this movie are strictly home-girls. Most low-budget movies have that "local babe" quality, and you can tell the babes in this movie were the local strippers and underwear models for JC Penneys. Some of them had so much cellulite hanging from their bikinis that it was funny to watch how the "youngsters" went wild over what was essentially some really over-used, high-mileage skank. There were some cuties too. That is the charm of these low-budget crappy movies. You will see a lot of doggies, and some real cuties! I checked up on some of them at IMDb and seven years later Phat Beach is their only credit. Too bad. It would be interesting if someone ever managed to do a "Where are they now" book on all of the cuties that have appeared in the history of movies and then were never again to return. What happened?? There are probably one or two young people in almost every movie who seem to have a lot going for them and yet years later when you see the movie again on TV you wonder "what ever happened to X?" Anyhow, this movie mostly blows, but it has some funny moments.


Watching this movie was the biggest waste of time and 2 bucks for rental in my life. If nothing catastrophic happens before I die, this will be the biggest regret of my life. Who ever even thought about this movie, or financed deserves a kick between the legs, because that's where they were thinking when they made this movie. It's about an overweight guy who is a hopeless romantic, and writes pretentious drivel that tries to pass off as poetry. He joins his amorous friend in a trip to the coast. Where they meet girls and such. Only the fat guy doesn't get a girl. Skin flicks don't annoy me, I take 'em for face value. But this movie tries to be more than a skin flick. It's about Fat guy looking for love in some girl, but then meets another bikini silicone girl that enjoys his poetry. He finds his talent for volleyball which gets money for his family and impresses the ladies, only he has his lady anyways. The dialogue is super-horrible for even a C movie. It supports a ton of black stereotypes, no character development, it's a glorified porno movie, without any porn in it. Never ever watch this movie.


Is nothing else on TV? Are you really bored? Well, then watch Phat Beach. However, don't rent it and definitely DO NOT buy it. That would be a big mistake.

I watched this on TV and found myself laughing at certain points. I did not laugh long and I did not laugh hard. However, there were subtle jokes and comments I laughed at. If you are looking for an extremely funny "hood" movie then watch Friday. If you are looking for a powerful emotional movie (something that this movie tries at..kind of) watch something like hoop dreams or Jason's Lyric. If you are lookin for some good black "booty" go watch a Dominique Simone porn flick, because the nudity in this movie is nearly non-existent. However, if you have nothing better to do and this is on cable, go ahead and watch it. You will be slightly amused.

***3 out of 10***


This is the worst movie ever made. The acting, the script, the location, everything! I would have given it a little chance if there were attractive women in the movie, but even they were bad. You would think that a movie with the word "beach" in it's title would have good-looking women in it. Wouldn't you?


A mediocre Sci-Fi Channel original picture. A little squirmish, but not much. The nuclear powered submarine U.S.S. Jimmy Carter is on a mission deep below thick frigid ice near the North Pole when it is attacked by giant super charged electric eels. A member of the crew (Simmone Jade Mackinnon)thinks she has devised a way to communicate with the monsters, but is not given much chance for vague reasons. Also among the crew are:David Keith, Mark Sheppard and Sean Whalen. This movie could have been somewhat better if the eels/monsters were not so cartoonish.


Deep Shock plays out like a TV movie: a whole cast of commercial-quality actors, a poorly designed creature to be the "bad guy," and a script that is more full of technical, political jargon and importances than it knows what to do with.

I checked out the movie because of the creature (I love to see what filmmakers have in mind for their designs in these cheaply made videos), and right off the bat, I got disappointed because the creature on the box was not the one in the movie. The actors I expected because of the type of film it is (really quite generic and not thought out past a certain point). The music was typical, not-thought-out action symphonic music.

I liked the design of the computers and technical equipment, along with the mini-sub design. The movie even flowed really well, with guiding screens letting you know which set you're watching the story unfold in. But there isn't much of a story here anyways.

This movie gets a 3/10 stars IMO. The boring search and destroy mission to blow up the North Pole and these creatures protecting it...kinda lame. Even lamer is the tagged-on love relationship between two of the characters that you don't see coming. Chalk this one up to being a movie which tries to get actors' careers off the bench and into a video. Don't bother.


This has to be the cheapest film made in 21st century. It is all the way low quality, but at the end it falls below... everything. All the cheap tricks - like flashing and darkness - are used to hide those crappy computer effects.

All the actors are below average, especially the main character Anne Fletcher (Simmone Mackinnon). There is a scene, where Anne is asked: "Why you seem so careless?" The correct answer is, because she can't act. No matter what happens (the world is about to be destroyed, her friend is dying, she is fired), she has the same stupid grin in her face.

It is not only the movie, which is B -quality. It is also the back cover description (at least in Finland). The text mentions things like Lorica Gray -vessel, Capital -vessel and main character Garrison Harper and Anna (not Anne) Fletcher. The description sounds like a different movie, both featuring character called Fletcher and sea monsters


I don't get this. The movie obviously has a pretty good budget. It has very good cinematography. It has nice pacing, good editing and pretty good directing too. Then WHY OH WHY didn't they hire someone to do a final rewrite of the script so it would not be so damn cheesy and WHY OH WHY did they hire such lousy actors that can't act their way out of a paper bag? This movie could have been good. At most times it LOOKS good and FEELS good but in the end, you realize that the movie was no good at all.

So I would say it's a good production but a bad movie. Too bad actually.

And eels? Come one, really!


Deep SH.. is more like it! The eels are just cartooned in over the film. Think "The Incredible Mr. Limpet" meets "Leviathan". Very tacky.

No character or relationship development. So called "romantic" scenes very corny and predictable. An interesting idea, but a poorly written script and LOUSY special effects make this a definite must-miss!


Actually had to stop it. Don't get me wrong, love bad monster movies. But this one was way too boring, regardless of the suspenseful music that never leads you anywhere. The actress had too many teeth and that moment when she makes contact with one of the beasts, was way too obvious a cliché. This film totally betrays the cover on the DVD which looks pretty interesting. From the cover one expects a giant monster, but you get these cute not as gigantic as expected electric eels. Moved on to watch another film called The Killer Rats but that's another review. Deep Shock was really crap, a big shame considering the fact that it looks pretty high budget.


This was one of the worst movies EVER!!!!!!!! It was so bad, I was laughing through the WHOLE movie! The plot was SO cheesy; especially the end. This movie turns from an end-of-the-world-disaster to save-the-eels! I mean, c'mon! And I swear...I think they use SOCK PUPPETS for the eels! And there was this horrible kiss scene in the middle with the two main characters who happened to be divorced. How predictable! It was SO terrible that my mom, my sister, and I couldn't finish it, and when we DID finish it, it was about a year later! The second time we watched it and we finished it this time, we did MST3K-like comments throughout the movie.

Summary: Only watch this if you're a movie basher! Make hilarious comments, watch this at a sleepover for laughs, and I mean HUGE laughs. Also watch for mockery. The metaphor that explains this movie: This movie is a very shallow field full of cheese and sock puppets!


HORRID!!

The special effects make the TV version of "Tremors" look real!

No one in the cast can act.

Kind of like the '62 "Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea" meets the cartoon ocean going electric eel cartoons.


The show had great episodes, this is not one of them. It's not a terrible episode, it's just hard to follow up "The man that was death.", "All through the house", and "Dig that cat, he's real gone."

This episode is about a couple that has just been married Peggy (Ammanda Plummer) and Charles (Stephen Shellen). In the first five minutes you find out that Charles only married Peggy for her money. The two go on their honeymoon and their car breaks down on a dirt road and they have to seek refuge in an old abandon mansion. Charles soon finds out a secret of Peggy's family...

In my opinion you should watch this episode, but just don't expect the same feeling as the rest of the episodes in the first season.


Slim Slam Slum is a sad and disappointing picture. There is absolutely no reason to this sorry excuse for a picture. Don`t go there, what ever you do, don`t. Watch TV-Shop for 10 hours straight instead. That way you will be slightly amused.


I have never seen a movie as bad as this. It is meant to be a "fun" movie, but the only joke is at the start, and it is NOT funny. If you like this sort of movie, then you may just be able to give it a vote of 2. If it had the necessary votes, it would truly belong on the bottom 100.


What a crappy movie! The worst of the worst! This movie is as entertaining as a dead slug. No-talent-what-so-ever-actors, stupid plot. Who wrote this script?! Was there ever a script for this goofy movie or did the director just accidentally press the record-button on his camera and then decided to make the film up as they went along? Is this meant to be a kids movie or a comedy or what? My friends younger brother is in the 6.th grade and him and his classmates just did an amateur-movie for their school-project which outdid this geeky movie.. This is by far the worst film I have seen in my life! There is just no excuse for this flick!


The danish movie "Slim Slam Slum" surprised me to be the worst movie i have seen to this date. I didn't think that it was possible to top my list of bad bad b-movies but this one deserves the gold. It's not funny. It's bad acting, It's bad filmed and the storyline is bad. The only positive thing i can say about this movie is it has three girls in it. I truly believe this flick has the potential to knock of the other danish movie "Stjerner uden hjerner" as the badest danish film ever made! And that's truly something. Congratulations in advance!


The Godfather Part I was a stunning look inside the fictional Corleone family and how an innocent young man was all but forced into circumstances he never wanted to have a part of. The Godfather Part II shows that young man's acceptance of his new role, his desensitization of character, as well as his complete loss of all innocence as he dives deeper and deeper into a life of crime. The first two parts of this saga of this transformation of Michael Corleone make for one of the greatest tragedies in cinematic history.

Then, along came The Godfather Part III. Michael Corleone is now the aging Don of the Corleone family. He shows remorse for his previous actions not through subtle behaviors, but by trying to use his powers for good and admitting all his wrongdoings and regrets to others. Very cliche and uncharacteristic of the complex character that is Michael Corleone. Michael's plans to use his powers for good are derailed by an ambitious young disciple and his enemies. Michael's daughter is eventually a casualty of the ongoing mob wars and her death predictably leads to Michael realizing that his entire life as Don has been worthless for he has failed in the one thing that was the reason for putting himself into the position he was in: protecting his family.

The Godfather Part II ends with Michael Corleone reaching the lowest of the lows: having his own brother killed. Before Part III was made, the Godfather saga was an emotionally riveting tale of an innocent young man's journey into darkness with the unbelievably tragic end of Michael forgetting his roots and abandoning the one thing that has always mattered most to him and those around him: family loyalty. Part III paints the picture of Michael as a man who is and always has been just a victim of circumstance. This greatly corrupts the meaning of the first two films.

The Godfather Part III is a horrible mess of a film that never should have been made. The only solution to the problem that is this final installment of The Godfather movies is to pretend that it does not exist and that the saga actually ends with Michael's shockingly horrible act of having a member of his own family killed.


Near the beginning of "The Godfather: Part III," Michael Corleone's son wants to drop out of law school and become a musician. Michael Corleone does not want this. But his estranged ex-wife, Kay, manages to convince him to let Anthony Corleone pursue music as he wishes. So he does.

That seems like an odd way to start a review, as it is a minor plot point and has nothing really to do with the major action. Just bear with me here; you'll see where I'm going with this eventually. Now let me tell you about the major plot. It is about Michael Corleone wanting to quit crime for good (he has largely abandoned all criminal elements in his family business). But then along comes Vincent Mancini, an illegitimate nephew, who is involved in a feud. So of course Michael must endure yet another brush with criminality and gun violence and all that good gangster stuff. Meanwhile, Vincent has a semi-incestuous affair with Michael's daughter Mary. Oh, and Michael and Kay are trying to patch up all the horrid things that happened at the end of Part II.

It is like a soap opera. One horrid, awful, 169-minute soap opera. Gone is any sort of the sophistication, romance, and emotional relevance that made the first two movies hit home so hard. After a 16-year break in the franchise, Francis Ford Coppola delivered a mess of sop and pretentiousness entirely incongruous with the first two films, once again proving his last great work was "Apocalypse Now" back in the 1970's.

What's worse, "The Godfather: Part III" isn't even a logical follow-up of "The Godfather: Part II." Michael is a completely different person. He hasn't just gone to seed (which might be legitimate, even if it'd be no fun to watch). He's become a goody-goody that's trying to fix all the tragedy that made Part II such a devastating masterpiece. His confession to the priest was bad enough, but that little diabetes attack in the middle pushed it over to nauseating. He also gets back together with Kay! For heaven's sakes, there is absolutely no way that should happen, as the 2nd movie made abundantly clear! She aborted his baby, and his Sicilian upbringing made him despise her for it. Didn't Francis Ford Coppola even think of these things?

And don't even get me started on Mary and Vincent's affair! For a romance so forbidden, it was shockingly unengaging. Sofia Coppola's acting did nothing to help. She made the smartest move of her life when she switched from in front of the camera to behind it, because she was possibly THE worst actress I have ever seen in a Best Picture nominee. Every line she delivered was painfully memorized, and every time the drama rested on her acting abilities, all she elicited was inappropriate giggles. In the climactic scene--I won't go into detail, but you'll know which scene I'm talking about when/if you watch it--she looks at Michael and says, "......Daddy?" I think I was meant to cry, but the line was delivered so poorly I burst out into long, loud laughter!

Now we get to the climax, and now you will also realize why I took time to start the review with a description of Anthony Corleone's musical ambitions. After 140 minutes of petty drama and irrelevant happenstances, Anthony Corleone returns... with an opera! So Michael, Kay, Mary, and Vincent go to see it, and for about 10-15 minutes a couple killers walk around trying to assassinate Michael. About this climactic sequence, I must say one thing: It was really good! But not because of the killers--they were pretty boring. I just really liked the opera. It had some great music and real great set pieces. And, from what little it showed us, it seemed that the story had echoes of the Corleone family's origin. I'll bet it was one swell opera, and I'll bet Michael Corleone was glad he let his son switch from law school to music.

My biggest wish is this: that Francis Ford Coppola had merely filmed Anthony Corleone's opera for 169 minutes and ditched the rest of the soggy melodrama. Better yet, I wish he hadn't made "The Godfather: Part III" at all. Part II gave us the perfect ending. This spin off was self-indulgent and unnecessary.

P.S. This is not a gut reaction to the film. I watched all 3 Godfather films over a month ago (though I was rewatching the first one). Not only does this mean that my expectations for Part III weren't screwed (in fact, I had set the bar rather low for it after what I heard), but it also means I've had a good time to think about all three films. While I was a bit disappointed with Part II at first, the more I thought about it, the better it seemed. But with Part III, it was bad to begin with, then got worse the more I thought about it. The sad thing is that many people will stop with Part I, but if they watch Part II as well, they will most likely go on to Part III. If you have the will, watch Parts I & II and pretend like Part III never existed.


I dislike this movie a lot. If you've read the Puzo's books, or at least have watched very closely the two first movies (specially the first one), you're going to agree with me.

Compared with the Corleone's saga presented by Puzo's novel, the script of this film is, sometimes, even ridiculous. The characters and the relationships among them are distorted. The story ends up reaching nowhere, although it appears to go to some direction during the movie.

It is understandable that different times should be expected for the Corleone's saga in the 90's, and that we would not gonna find things the way they were before. But, in the other hand, I don't know why they had to copy some dialogues from the other movies, in contexts when they didn't fit. Why this? It sounds like those poorly made sequels that just try to copy the original film's qualities.

What will never be understandable is the fact that Mario Puzo, Coppola and Al Pacino joined together to make this. A man who directed pieces like Apocalypse Now and Godfather has to be forgiven for almost anything he does in cinema until he dies. So does Al Pacino, for being the actor he is. But Mario Puzo shouldn't have written this. How come? He damaged all his previous work. What a shame, my friend. The Puzo's novel "The Last Don" is a 90's story about the mob, and it is great. We can never tell the same about the plot for the Godfather III.


And, finally, old, old Michael Corleone falls over and goes 'THUMP!' Who REALLY did the writing for this last installment of the Godfather saga? Probably the same staff who does "As the World Turns." This flick doesn't deserve the title "Godfather" at all. Let's call this one "The Cosas of Our Nostras" or "All My Capos". As someone who's encountered a number of Mafia people in my business life, I can say without exception, that I've never met any mobster as inwardly-conflicted and contemplative as Michael Corleone. Let's face it, these guys are in the Mafia solely because they're greedy, nothing more. In this film, Don Corleone spends lots of time pondering his past deeds and his bleak future, perhaps even the Afterlife, then recovers remarkably fast in order to pull off some fantastic business deal or order the death of this one or that one like the big time operator he is, deep down. Then, there's his failed marriage. After the break-up scenes in G2, we may hope that Michael & Kay will reunite as man and wife, but here they seem to just become very good, platonic friends who can laugh & cry & share intimate thoughts about their lives. It's as if the screenwriters try to make Michael into a woman. It's bizarre behavior for two people who shared the passion of the marriage bed for 9 years. There's some miscasting here and there, or perhaps they're sins of authorship. Poor, old-country-beautiful Sophia Coppola is saddled with a hopeless role, with too many short lines in the film that don't fit what a young woman would say in casual conversations - was given "remarks" rather than "lines" to emote. Her 'passionate' lovemaking scene with Andy Garcia looks like something from a bad teen sex comedy as they chew their open-mouthed kisses and fondle each others backsides on the kitchen drainboard like marionettes...scullery sex was brought off wonderfully by Glenn Close and Michael Douglas, but it's just laughable here. Then, there's Andy's character, Vinnie Mancini, who's also given a difficult & thankless role to play. He's expected, I guess, to be the new, new Don Corleone, but he's almost handed the job on a silver platter and has to do little to strengthen his position, unlike Michael's simultaneous hits on all 5 Families in G1. This hand-me-down process may be an authentic way of transferring power in a Mafia Family, but why is so much made of this boring routine? Certainly, Don Vincent may earn the respect of his fellow gangsters someday, but there's little character revelations in the script to give us a portrait of this young man, sadly. Puzo did such a fine job of quickly & concisely developing Michael's character in G1. But, G3 has no economy in it's story-telling and we suffer through drawn out expositories until we just want to take a snooze. Thirdly, George Hamilton was also handed a thankless task, in taking over as family lawyer after Robt Duvall reportedly turned down a 3rd installment as Tom Hagen. George wisely underplayed his role, so it came off without damage to the actor. The development of Connie Corleone's character is interesting, but it goes too far when she takes murderous matters into her own hands (she could well end up sleeping with the Fredos, if this were the real world). But, it's not all bad. The assassination scene in the hotel penthouse is nifty! Also, "they keep pulling me back in" or words to that effect is a great line. And, we recover some old-country feel as we get to go back to Sicily, even if it's all done in 1989 and they've got modern cars & haircuts. The plot lines involving the corrupt hierarchy of the Catholic Church are pretty interesting, since it's based on some actual financial shenanigans at Banco Vaticani in the 1980's, but it's brought too far, again, with the too-spectacular death scenes, etc. The Grand Opera scenes are very dramatic and well photographed. But, the death scene of Mary toward the end is an unbalanced attempt of emotional-manipulation, at best. All screenwriters need to learn that we don't always need more and more death in order to bring a mafia movie to a successful conclusion. You feel sorry for Kay that her daughter is dead, she plays her grief so well, but Michael's reaction is hammy, hammy, hammy. Then, Michael dies sometime in the 21st Century, in Sicily, alone on a grand estate, of heart-failure...no grandson to play with before his demise, no wife to grieve for him. What SHOULD have happened in the last 1/2 of this movie is Michael being tracked down by someone like Rudy Guilliani, put on trial, all his dirty family's sleazy little enterprises and bloodthirsty indulgences brought into the light of day, Michael then convicted under RICO statutes and sent to Federal Prison for life...then he can keel over dead from heart-failure while mopping a floor IN LEAVENWORTH. That's how mafia dons were ending their careers in the late 80's and early 90's and they got much better treatment than what they deserved.


Years ago I saw The Godfather and it made a lasting impression on me, the atmosphere of the movie was first class, the acting memorable and the storyline a classic. Recently I bought the Trilogy and after watching Part 1 again I looked eagerly to viewing Part 2...... I was so pleased to realize early on into Part 2 that here was a fitting follow on to the great Godfather movie, again everything was just about perfect and I could not wait to see Godfather III ........ WRONG!, I wish I'd stopped at II. The storyline was not good, it seemed to me like a story made up just to have a story, the characters were weak especially the daughter. Pacino's protege was a weak character that would have been eaten alive in Godfather 1 or 2. Then scenes such as, Corleone being invested with all the trappings of the Catholic Church with full choir, the assassin on horseback riding away into the sunset, the unseen helicopter machine gunning of the meeting (where the 'goodies' get away and everyone else is shot),daughter and 1st cousin rolling bits of pasta across a board, the pathetic shooting on the steps ..... Corleone stuffing sweets down him with orange juice for diabetes (a man of his intelligence and guile isn't ready for an emergency?)... NO it was not good and with the best will in the world I wont be able to watch it again. But I'll watch 1 & 2 many times down the years.


Any person with fairly good knowledge of German cinema will surely tell that numerous films about a young girl having troubles with her mother as well as her boy friend have been made in the past.If such a film is shown to people again,it would surely click provided if it has something new,fresh and captivating for today's challenging audiences. This is also true for German film maker Sylke Enders as her film's principal protagonist Kroko has been mistreated by everybody around her including her mother and boyfriend.She is bold enough to face any punishment as she has tried her hand at all kinds of criminal activities including shoplifting.Kroko was originally shot on DV to be blown afterwards to 35 mm format.Its technical virtuosity does not hamper our joys when we learn that Kroko would like to become a policeman as she feels that she is averse to the idea of becoming a run of the mill hairdresser.If someone were to state a positive aspect of Sylke Enders' film,it may well be Kroko's involvement with handicapped people as a result of a punishment.It is with Kroko that we learn that punks are human too with their unique joys and sorrows.


First of all this movie is not a comedy; unless you really force yourself you can hardly laugh. Secondly, the movie is slow and boring. The acting is not bad but not special. There is a Lucky Luke comic about two families (one with big noses and one with big ears) fighting each other in a small town... you will laugh much more if you read this instead of wasting your time with this movie. Religions and dogmas are not the best source to make a good comedy and this movie does nothing more than confirm this rule. There is a similar subject comedy '' The home teachers'' ; this had some good moments. My final comment is: do not waste your time and money to watch this uninspired and boring film.


'Baptists at Our Barbecue' is the best film ever made. Now, that I got your attention with that horribly inaccurate statement that should be a hanging offense if spoken, let me begin my short overview of this tacky, offensive, pretentious and boring hunk of junk I guess you could consider a movie. First of all, the low budget of this stinker is totally obvious based on the very poor and inexperienced direction of Christian Vuissa, and the tacky, overly preachy, whiny and stilted screenplay by F. Mathew Smith. I really despise the fact that it sends a very pro-Mormon, and sort of anti-every other religion message. Yes, the story is about a small town half full with Mormons and half full with Baptists. It shows all the main and role-model characters being Mormon, and being so nice and perfect, yet they are being picked on by the evil, conniving and very judgmental Baptists. It shows how beautiful Mormons are and how cold-hearted and ignorant Baptists are, instead of showing a little solidarity like would be appropriate and realistic. I'm a part of neither religion (I'm actually an atheist), but this offended me, along with another countless amount of Baptists most likely. It shows the Baptists as being very unopened and unwelcoming to the Mormons, and the Mormons being very accepting, when again, in reality there is a mutual like/dislike between them. Sorry, I didn't mean to go off on a rant.

Another aspect of 'Baptists at Our Barbecue' I didn't much care for, was the acting. The performances are very amateurish and unnatural, especially from the female lead Heather Beers. Miss Beers stumbles her way through her part without any passion or feeling for her role, and I wasn't too much impressed with Dan Merkley, who's the main character in this lackluster of a motion picture, but I have to say he's way more talented or shows more talent in this film then Heather Beers. Whoever played the town sheriff was awful also. Although there is maybe a tiny laugh deep within the film, it is full of clichés. For example, the main character, Tartan (Merkley), finds solace with a Native American who always gives him the best advice on things relating to a tribal way of life - how cliché is that? To make the situation even more of a pathetic cliché, Tartan buys the poor, lonely heathen a puppy dog. Ugghhh!

If you want my advice, stay as far away from 'Baptists at Our Barbecue' as you can. I saw it on the shelf and thought it would be a cute and interesting little indie about religion. All I got was a, well, piece of crap. Grade: D-

my ratings guide - A+ (absolutley flawless); A (a masterpiece, near-perfect); A- (excellent); B+ (great); B (very good); B- (good); C+ (a mixed bag); C (average); C- (disappointing); D+ (bad); D (very bad); D- (absolutley horrendous); F (not one redeeming quality in this hunk of Hollywood feces).


Generally, I've found that if you don't hear about a movie prior to seeing it on DVD, there's probably a good reason for it. I hadn't heard about this movie at all until I was in a Blockbuster the other day and saw it on a shelf. Since all the good movies had already been rented out (the ones I wanted to see, anyway), I figured I'd give this one a shot.

It's really not much different than other movies in the genre, such as The Singles Ward or the R.M. If you're into those type movies, you'll probably enjoy this.

However, if you're not a mormon, this movie probably won't appeal to you. There's no way to avoid the overtly religious (mormon) message contained within, and at times it comes across as sappy and cheesy. Ultimately, if you don't fall within the mormon demographic, you're probably better off watching something else.

Admittedly, there were some very funny moments in the film, but I didn't think that it was enough to salvage the movie overall.


I concur with everyone above who said anything that will convince you to not waste even a briefest of moments watching this amazingly amateurish movie. Very poor acting, offhand production values, utterly pedestrian direction, and a script so inept and inane it should never have been written, let alone produced. Even Hollywood "professionals" apparently go to work just for a paycheck, although no one should have been paid for this bad work. Careers should instead have ENDED over this inconsequential drivel.

OTH, there is something fascinating about watching something so jaw-droppingly bad. And Chad Lowe is terrifically and consistently bad.


I saw this movie in the middle of the night, when I was flipping through the channels and there was nothing else on to watch. It's one of those films where you stop to see what it is - just for a moment! - but realize after twenty minutes or so that you just can't turn it off, no matter how bad it is. One of those movies that is somewhere in between being so bad it's good and so bad it's, well, just plain BAD, it's worth seeing just to experience the confusion of realizing that it's both! Great middle-of-the-night fare, if only for the fabulous tennis drag. Don't even bother asking yourself why nobody can tell that Chad Lowe is so obviously male, because logic does not apply.


I really wish that when making a comedy, the people actually tried to make it funny. This is a film that you can sit through, but nothing is special about it. After watching it, you will say that it was alright. It was not boring to watch, but gave the audience no jokes to laugh at. Entertainment should mean that you actually get something more than an o.k. story. This movie wanted to be "Tootsie", but instead it failed.

I gave it a 1 out of 10.


This movie was on the Romance channel, and I thought it might be a goofy 80's movie that would be enjoyable on some level, so my brother and I watched it. Boy did it suck. Boy gets crush on girl--correction, his *dream*-girl (apparently there is a difference; and I'm surprised he realized she was his dream girl--he was smitten with her from over 30 feet away. I guess that just goes to show the power of dream-girls), boy ends up masquerading as a female to be near dream-girl (creative in the sense that it's a far-out plan, but un-creative in the sense that there are probably better solutions one might think up), awkward situations ensue, a match is made (all of which takes seems to take place around late afternoon--either the location was somehow responsible for this odd lighting, or the actors had to wait until they got off of their day-jobs to come to the set; I suspect the latter). Very clumsily done, very pathetic. It's almost never even amusing *accidentally*, so there really is nothing to redeem it. Unless you're interested in seeing Chad Lowe's early days, before he finally got his piece of the pie with his role as the HIV-positive gay guy on the series "Life Goes On", or Gail O'Grady who was on NYPD Blue and probably got to stare at Dennis Franz's buttocks). But those are unlikely motives--I'd say "systematic derangement of the senses" would be a more justified purpose. I'm surprised I watched it all. I guess it's the kind of thing where, halfway through, you find yourself *still* watching due to some morbid, self-flagellistic inner-issue, and think you might as well finish it so you can tell your friends and family that you actually sat through such a horrible movie, on the off-chance that it'll garner you some sympathy for the questionable state of your mental health. Can *You* Take the Challenge?


Quite the most boring nonsense I have seen in a long time. The plot was full of irrelevance, and the acting was the worst I have seen in a long time.

To make it worse, camera angles that made me feel sick were used , the incidental music was terrible and drowned out the dialogue (maybe not a bad thing then), and the shots of San Francisco looked as if they had been stolen straight out of the city tourist board's promotional video.

Oh, and the obligatory sex scene was not even half well done. Better lighting next time, please.


Reed Diamond plays a man suffering from amnesia who's been in a mental asylum for over a decade after he was found wondering the back roads with blood on his hands. The doctors want to test out an experimental new drug that'll return his lost memories if it works. But when the drugs give him hallucinations of a demon, he chooses to escape instead. While outside he befriends a young boy whose stepfather (Greg Grunberg) mistreats his mother, won't let her near the darkroom in his basement & acts suspicious in general.

While the general 'mystery' of the film is a tad easy to identify way before it's revealed, I found Mr. Diamond's acting to be enthralling enough to keep my attention throughout. (In the interest of full disclosure, I've been a huge fan of his since Homicide and his brief, but extremely pivotal, role in The Shield up through Journeyman & Dollhouse) Not a great film nor a good one, but serviceable enough. Although I did like it better than the previous films that I've seen from Director/writer Michael Hurst (Room 6, Pumkinhead 4, Mansquito)

Eye Candy: one fleeting pair of boobs in a hallucination

My Grade: C-


The story idea is excellent. Unfortunately, the execution lets it down.

The movie lacks pace, for one thing. It should be an exciting ride, but it is slow and more than a little boring.

I think the problem's mainly in the screenplay and editing. There aren't enough obstacles and reversals to ratchet up suspense, and there are scenes which don't really move the story along very effectively.

The producers should have seen this in the screenplay and insisted upon a major rewrite. Unfortunately, when the producer is also the writer and the director, this evidently ain't gonna happen.

Much of the acting seems kind of flat, and that is down to the director - all the actors have been quite competent in other projects.

It's a shame, because with better writing, editing and direction, this could have been a really good thriller.


That might be a bit harsh for me saying that, but sadly so far in his directing career its true. Just have a look at what he as done so far. They barely make it past the 3 star mark.

Why did I watch this movie? 2 reasons. Lucy Lawless and Heroes star Greg Grunberg. Lucy was outstanding in this movie, her performance carries the whole movie. I do hope she gets a "blockbuster" and breaks into the bigger league of actors, she clearly has the skills. Greg was not so impressive, typical TV acting style.

The movie is oddly categorized as a horror. The only "horror" is short flashbacks, and they last a max of 2-5 seconds with a little blood in them. I personally would call this more a "drama/thriller".

But no matter how interesting the story actually is, bad directing, editing and acting (appart from Lucy) destroys it. You get no real connection to the actors, something which is very important in a story like this one. You just sit there watching feeling nothing. Its like watching a bad TV soap....actually I think the TV soap would be more interesting.

My advice: Stay away from this movie...or better yet just stay away from anything Michael Hurst is involved with.


This was such a waste of time. Danger: If you watch it you will be tempted to tear your DVD out of the wall and heave it thru the window.

An amateur production: terrible, repetitive, vacuous dialog; paper-thin plot line; wooden performances; Lucy Lawless was pathetically hackneyed.

Seriously flawed story, completely unbelievable characters. The two worst concepts in film and t.v. are: (1) the evil twin, (2) amnesia. There are no twins.

The plot "twist"? Outrageously simplistic and obvious - like watching a train coming down the track in the middle of the day on the prairies. It doesn't even resolve properly. The evil is not punished for the original crime.

Please, please, please - don't watch this even if its free and your only other choice is to go to a synagogue.


I read a couple of good reviews on this board for "Mr. Scarface", but for anyone uninitiated in the genre of Italian gangster films like myself, the picture will probably make very little sense. Indeed, after the initial setup involving the ten million lira scam, the picture devolved into a fairly routine revenge flick with a minor twist in the identity of Rick's (Al Cliver) character. The whole gang war plot got muddied up for me with the inclusion of Vinchenzo Napoli (Vittorio Caprioli), but as most other viewers commented, he's about the only one who gave this picture any life with his often ineffective attempts at violence. I found it somewhat unbelievable that Manzari's goons who chased Tony through the streets didn't actually stroke out before Tony even laid a hand on them. For all of his buildup as the title character, Jack Palance was wasted rather unceremoniously in an anticlimactic near finale, making the U.S. working title, "Mr. Scarface", rather moot. I've seen enough spaghetti Westerns to know that they don't all work; I guess in this case, my first look at a spaghetti gangster flick didn't quite make it either.


- A small time hood tricks the local mob boss out of a lot of money. Of course the mob boss wants his money back and doesn't care who he has to kill to get it. The punk enlists his friend and an old mobster to help him save his life.

- If this sounds ridiculous, it is. The whole idea that this Izod-wearing, dune buggy-driving punk could hold off one of the most powerful mobs in Rome is just plain silly. His friend may be good with a gun, but he's up against a group of trained killers. The old mobster is little more than comic relief and no real help when it comes to the face off with the mob. There's also a sub-plot about how the friend's father was killed years ago by the mob boss, but there's little made of it and it doesn't help the movie any at all.

- The mob boss, Mister Scarface, is played by Jack Palance. I suppose he got the name because he has what looks like a shaving nick on his cheek. Palance is as ineffective as the rest of the cast, doing what he must to get a paycheck.

- I've seen some pretty good Italian crime/cop flicks recently, but Mister Scarface isn't one of them. Check out Syndicate Sadists or Revolver instead.


I am a big fan of Ludlum's work, and of the Covert-one books, and I had often thought how incredible they would be made into a film. Imagine my excitement, then, on learning that such a movie actually existed! The 'Hades Factor' being the first in the series seemed an obvious place to start.

From the outset the film was disappointing. Simple elements from the film such as Griffin's first meeting with Smith are needlessly different from the book, and much less exhilarating. Several characters are poorly cast, too. For starters Dorff is woeful as Smith. Not a bad actor, just an incredibly bad choice as he is far too soft, and fails to exhibit many of the features that are definitive of John Smith.

Re-naming, re-assignment and even omission of certain characters further degrades this film. For example the removal of Victor Tremont and the entire back-story of the virus, including the involvement of VAXHAM makes the entire point to the film somewhat hazy. Marty Zellerbach is a very large part of the book, and in the seat he takes vary much a back seat (not to mention that the film character shares nothing in common with the character in the book) is another big mistake.

Rachel Russel is presumably supposed to be Randi Russel from the book. Not only is she supposed to be the sister of Sophie Amsden (should be called Sophia Russel) but she is also supposed to work from the CIA, NOT "Covert-one". Which brings me to my final point, and I think one of the most important. COVERT-ONE doesn't even exist at this point! Not until the second book of the series is Covert-One devised by the president as a preventative measure against further biological terrorism.

To be honest I could go on all day. In short - if you like the books and want to see a good adaptation, I'm afraid you'll be bitterly disappointed. Even as an action movie it is thoroughly average, mainly due to very lack-luster editing and poor effects. The bumbled story line and dull-as-ditch-water script are the final nails in the very cheap coffin of this film.


If Bob Ludlum was to see this mini series, he would have cried. This was complete waste of time and money. I have read the book and even though movies are not exactly what the book may be, CBS wasted time and money on this and it is embarrassing to claim that this was Ludlum's work.

May be the creator should check out the Bourne Identity with Richard Chamberlain and see how good that TV series was.

Poor Mira, Blair, Anjelica and Colm, why did they sign to stoop this low?

Horrible!!


Alfred Hitchcok is not my favorite director by any means but imagine what he could have done with this! The plot holds much potential for suspense. John Garfield is as almost always excellent and Raymond Massey is scarily cast against type. Nancy Coleman is not a very impressive leading lady but the supporting cast is large and very capable.

Yes it starts to sag fairly early. There are too many coincidences. And an important subject is trivialized by its being made into little more, in the end, than a love story.

It's fun to watch for Garfield, Massey, and the character performers. But it's not awfully good.


A somewhat awkward spy mystery with a predictable plot about World War Two dangers. The mystery is whether or not Jane Graystone (Nancy Coleman) has amnesia. The best acting is done by Raymond Massey as Dr. Ingersoll, a good doctor turned evil. He is head of a spy ring attempting to get information from amnesiac Jane, coded information related to allied activities. Will she tell? Can she remember? Moroni Olson (as Mr. Goodwin) is convincing as an accomplice to Massey. The role played by John Garfield (as Dr. Lewis) is nothing short of disastrous. He seems so badly miscast that the casting has to be ranked as one of the worst in film history. It is unfortunate that so talented an actor is stuffed into a role which not befitting his talents. The movie is worth one look, despite being a half spy and half gangster film, and despite containing a parade of stereotyped characters. It's easy to forget this one, amnesia is not necessary.


I should have figured that any movie with the Poltergeist lady in it isn't going to be good. It actually starts out okay, but during the first murder scene you find out that the movie you're watching is a movie inside of a movie. There's people sitting in a movie theatre watching that movie. One girl in the audience is so annoying that I would have turned around and strangled her. A bit strange, but far from good.


The dialogue was pretty dreadful. The plot not really all that inspired beyond the obvious twist it presents. Not visually stunning. Actually visually annoying at times. Most definitely one of those films you find easier to finish if you keep one finger on the fast forward button. If you could watch it for free, have absolutely no other options open at the moment and you really dig seeing the little poltergeist lady... well maybe I'd recommend it to you, but not anyone else I could think of at the moment.


John Pressman (Micheal 'I shoulda called Ditech' Lerner) works at a doctor's office as an orderly. His mother (Zelda 'Poltergeist' Rubenstein) hypnotizes him to off the people who see thinks wronged him. But this turns out to be a movie within a movie, but the lines soon blur as John goes a movie theater to kill. Prompting a guy who's watching the movie to do the same. Lerner is suitably over the top in this, but Zelda repeats lines of dialog over and over again. That gets annoying fast. But not as annoying as the two girls who are watching the movie within a movie.As a horror film this one fails, it's too busy trying to be clever, trying to impart a message and seems to forget a slasher film must evoke a sense of tension, or at least a jump or two. No, what we have here is the worst kind of slasher: An art-house one.

My Grade: D+


The acronymic "F.P.1" stands for "Floating Platform #1". The film portends the building of an "F.P.1" in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean, to be used as an "air station" for transatlantic plane flights. Based a contemporary Curt Siodmark novel; it was filmed in German as "F.P.1 antwortet nicht" (1932), in French as "I.F.1 ne répond plus" (1933), and in English as "F.P.1" (1933). Soon, technology made non-stop oceanic travel much more preferable.

Stars Conrad Veidt (as Ellissen), Jill Esmond (as Droste), and Leslie Fenton (as Claire) find love and sabotage on and off the Atlantic platform. Karl Hartl directed. Mr. Veidt is most fun to watch; but, he is not convincing in the "love triangle" with Ms. Esmond and Mr. Fenton. The younger co-stars were the spouses of Laurence Olivier and Ann Dvorak, respectively. Both the concept and film have not aged well.

**** F.P.1 (4/3/33) Karl Hartl ~ Conrad Veidt, Jill Esmond, Leslie Fenton


I had a video of the thing. And I think it was my fourth attempt that I managed to watch the whole film without drifting off to sleep. It's slow-moving, and the idea of a mid-Atlantic platform, which may have been revolutionary at the time, is now just a great big yawnaroony. Apart from Conrad Veidt, the rest of the cast are pretty forgettable, and it is only in the action towards the end that things get really interesting. When the water started to spill big-time it even, on one occasion, woke me up.

But give the man his due. No one could hold a cigarette like Conrad Veidt. He doesn't wedge it between his index and middle fingers like the lesser mortals. He holds it in his fingers, while showing us the old pearly-browns. There are a few scenes in this film where the smoke drifts up to heaven against a dark background,and looks very artistically done. But it does not say much about this film if all that impresses you is the tobacco smoke.


The problems with Nikhil Advani's Salaam-e-Ishq are many. A one-line concept that looks good on paper (which also worked in an earlier English film - Love Actually) goes terribly wrong thanks to inept and shallow writing. A well-intentioned idea gets crushed to smithereens under the weight of its own gargantuan ambition. A director so completely besotted by his own much applauded first film goes overboard with the devices that worked in his earlier film (Kal Ho Na Ho) - try counting the number of times the device of split screens is used in this flick. The problem is - what worked fabulously in Kal Ho Na Ho were the emotional excesses of the Karan Johar school of film-making, but here, 'emotion' doesn't quite grace us with its appearance on the screen - no, not even cursorily. The writer/ director gives us 'six relationships with one common problem - love', but where is the intensity, where is the depth, where is the 'emotion'? A 'tribute to love' sans emotion? And one that goes on and on and on...... Nah, it just cannot work!

In my opinion, the basic requirement for a portmanteau film like this to work is that not only should each individual story be 'complete', it should - in some way or the other - follow the graph of the traditional three-act structure (screen writing guru, Syd Field's Paradigm). That's the real reason why Salaam-e-Ishq didn't work for me. None of the stories had any depth or a roller-coaster ride of emotional ups and downs one expects in mainstream Hindi cinema. Also, the linkage between some of the stories seemed tenuous and very forced. It's not clear what Salman Khan is doing at Ayesha Takia's wedding. If he was required to be present at the wedding scene for a neat wrap-up, why not conjure a few more coincidences and bring the other two couples also to the wedding? That would be neater.

But yes, some of the stories did have a lot of promise. For one, the Anil Kapoor-Juhee Chawla story tries to address a very real situation - mid-life crisis, but its journey is so linear that you're left wondering if it was really an issue. Similarly, the problem of commitment in the Akshaye Khanna-Ayesha Takia story is also true to life. If only it was developed a little better. I felt that the more promising stories in this mish-mash were told from the male point of view, which is fine, but it brings down the emotional quotient of these stories because the female characters - Juhee Chawla and Ayesh Takia in particular - have all the depth of a half-filled bath tub. Wasn't this film supposed to be about '12 different lives'? Now the actors. John Abraham still needs to learn acting, while Vidya Balan is dependable and endearing as ever. Anil Kapoor gets a role written just for him but sometimes overplay the boredom of his character. Since she didn't get a meaty character to portray, Juhee Chawla uses her charming smile and natural acting style to cover up for it. Akshaye Khanna is fine despite going a trifle over-the-top in a few scenes. Ayesha Takia has nothing much to do, but she does remind us that she's the same girl who surprised us with her bravura performance in Dor. Govinda tries to make up for that HUGE mistake called Bhagam Bhag, and succeeds to a large extent.

That brings me the most irritating track of the film (which unpardonably ends up hogging the maximum screen time) - Salman Khan and Priyanka Chopra. The track is irritating mainly because of them. But I must credit them for their consistency. They're consistently BAD all through the film. Priyanka could well be the next queen of hamming - I don't buy the crap that her role (that of an 'item girl') required her to act over-the-top. Somebody should tell her the difference between being flamboyant because the character demands it and downright hamming. If you've seen Rakhi Sawant (who seems to be the inspiration behind this role) in her interviews and Bigg Boss you'll know what I mean. I strongly feel that if Nikhil Advani had taken Rakhi Sawant in this role rather than a bigger star like Priyanka, the story would have worked better. Salman Khan's phony accent is.....well, Shannon Esra's Hindi is less accented than Salman's.

To be fair to the director, he does manage to add some good directorial touches to the film. I particularly liked the use of grey as the predominant color in the Anil Kapoor-Juhee Chawla story as a metaphor for their boring existence, and the bright colors that come into the story with the arrival of the other woman. But will anyone choose to paint their house in varying, depressing shades of grey? That's acceptable cinematic license I would say. But when the film runs almost for 4 hours, it almost feels like the director is trying too hard to give the audience a glimpse of his 'touch' in an endlessly meandering montage of uninspiring sequences.

Maybe Nikhil Advani wants us to sit in the theatre for as long as is humanly possible- pata nahin, kal ho na ho.


It's amazing to see how Nikhil Advani manages to attract people to the theater till the very day of the release. I mean..... look at the cast here , the promotion is superb, good enough songs and the trailers are fine. This makes it a house full on the first day, but it's only when people go and see the film they realize that there is no way their money is refundable. House full the first day , the movie is out the next week.

This film, inspired by 'Love Actually' is what they say, didn't manage to handle the whole cast well. They tried to put in big stars but ended up by not even managing to bring out even an average performance by any one. The stories are hollow and cheesy, so the audience can't connect with any single one of them. It's a big disappointment to all those who like big stars or for that matter Nikhil Advani after his big success of 'Kal Ho Na Ho'.


OK the director remakes LOVE ACTUALLY The director Nikhil Advani after debuting with KHNH does his second half and wait

He makes a 3:30 hours + film which loses on patience, time.etc The viewer seems like a 3 hrs sleep watching this film

OK they had 6 stories so it was necessary but why? 6 stories?

We have the Anil- Juhi story convincing but boring don't TV serials show such stories?

We have Govinda- Shannon story which is funny and works well

We have Akshaye-Ayesha story again believable but gets boring soon and the focus is on comedy more and that too slapstick boring comedy

We have Salman- Priyanka story which is the worst, not just acting terms, it makes no sense at all

We have Sohail- Isha story to make you laugh and the trick works at times thanks to the boredom set by most of other stories

We have John- Vidya story a good story in all respects

But then by the time all stories come in bits n pieces the viewer gets bored and sleepy The climax isn't appealing though especially The climax of Salman- Priyanka story Nikhil Advani's handling is alright at places, some stories are well handled but weak at places Music(SEL)is good, but too many songs Cinematography is nice, every story is given a different look, texture and it works

Actors Govinda rocks, after a dismissal comeback with BB he actually makes you laugh and love him in this film despite his age and weight Anil Kapoor acts his part well, though he looks out of shape and tired John excels in his part, Akshaye Khanna overacts for a change

Sohail Khan is too over- the - top and Isha has nothing to do Anjana Suknani is dismissal

Priyanka and Salman deserve an award for this film you are shocked?

Salman Khan doesn't act only, just talks like he is in his sleep and that fake accent oh god Priyanka overacts to such a standard you feel like throwing something on her, she does get better towards the end Vidya Balan is good, Juhi Chawla is okay Shannon is okay


We all have seen some unending epics in our times, but this one really tops them all! The movie is so long and so slow, that, just to put things in perspective, i felt a lot older when i left movie hall, than I entered it. At almost 4 hours length, it could have rather been made into a tele-serial.

What starts as a promising comedy slowly loses its pace. Nikhil advani has woven the plot around 6 love stories and he cant make justice to any one of them... There is no interconnection between them to start with, and links shown in last 20 minutes just seem to be forced to connect the story.

Situation is made worse by Silly dialogues (most of them repeated in Hindi cinema over years)and stupid cinematography.

Priyanka doesn't realise that she actually needs to play her role rather than just looking glam on screen... An utter waste of beauty without acting skills.

And then there is loud-is-humorous Govinda & my-face-twists-better-than-jim-carrey Akshay Khanna who keep belching at the top of their lungs to irritate already tired viewers.

Only good part in movie is John & Vidya's love story & nice acting/comedy by sohail & Isha. But they are so good at their roles that just these two couples could have justified the movie without jumbling it with other bunch of characters. Their brilliance gets lost in the midst of other substandard plot lines.

My guess - Director was making two separate movies(may be more!) and some beginner assistant mixed up all the records, beyond a point of sorting them out, so director was left with no choice to show it all as a single movie...

Watch it only if you want to test your patience!!!


Clocking in at an interminable three hours and twenty minutes, "Salaam-e-Ishq" is a pretty but superficial comic soap opera from India that regales us with six interwoven tales of romantic love (which is at least four tales too many in my estimation).

Filmed like a cross between an MTV music video and a Super Bowl beer commercial, the movie is a sprawling mishmash of exotic settings, dazzling colors, sexy showgirls, high-stepping song-and-dance numbers, dream and fantasy sequences, winking character asides, corny dialogue and way-over-the-top comical performances - all pretty much standard-issue stuff when it comes to Bollywood happenings these days. It's an exhausting chore just trying to keep all the characters straight as they dance, prance and preen their way through the incomprehensible storyline.

There's plenty for the viewer to feast his eyes on here - not least of all all the drop dead gorgeous women - but he'll need the patience of Job to get him all the way through it.


Six different couples. Six different love stories. Six different love angles. Eighty numbers of audience in the movie theater. Looking at the eighty different parts of the silver screen.

I am sitting in somewhere between them looking at the center of the screen to find out what's going on in the movie. All stories have got no link with each other, but somewhere down the line Nikhil Advani trying to show some relation between them. I tried to find out a few lines I could write as review but at the end of 3 hours 15 minutes found nothing to write. The movie is a poor copy of Hollywood blockbuster LOVE ACTUALLY.

My suggestion. Don't watch the movie if you really want to watch a nice movie.


This is a sad film made for sad people. I was sitting in theaters tearing my hair apart, wanting to break the chairs in front of me as the movie spitted out one cringe-inducing scenes after another. And there were people roaring with laughter behind me, which made me wonder what kind of films these people must be watching to actually enjoy this horse-s**t.

Nikkhil Advani has six stories with no plot and no interesting characters. The screenplay is dull, probably he was drunk when he was writing this film. There is no strong hold on any of these stories. Nothing new , nothing to hold the audience and filled with dialogs which you would have heard a million times before. One of the stories is about this couple not being able to have sex because of series of disasters taking place every time they want to do it. I mean seriously is this story really required? Its not funny, not creative but only proves that Advani has no sense of comedy. Another of the stories (which was probably the only story I was interested in) is based on a man's infidelity and that too ends in a lame age-old sati-savitri pati-parmeshwar crap. I have no idea what the Salmaan-Priyanka plot was all about. There was no issue in the plot for it to be a plot. She can't take Karan Johar's film because she has to marry Salmaan ?? Why can't she marry him and still take the film ?? or does Advani and Priyanaka just want to prove the world that it is in fact true that female actors cant be successful if they are married or that they should not act in films once they are married?? With six actors in the film obviously Advani cant produce the film all by himself. So he makes full use of sponsors like the Times group, shamelessly promoting their Filmfare magazines. And also some jewelery brand which the women in the film absolutely seem to adore!! I come to IMDb to give it the worst rating and i am shocked to see posts praising the film. It just goes to show the sad state of bollywood and how star struck the fans are. With fans like these, movies like Salaam E Ishq will be continue to be made and worse probably be a hit.


My sincere advice to all: don't watch the movie.

Don't even go near to the theater where this movie is being played!! even a glimpse of it is bad for health. serious. no jokes. it's 3.30 am in the morning. and i returned from this crappiest movie on this universe. FOUR HOURS DAMN!!! I am proud that i survived after all of it! If this is called survival.

i am highly frustrated. annoyed. disappointed. it was sheer waste of time! money went in drain! no plot. Hope i wake up tomorrow sane and with no memories of this night!! RUBBISH MOVIE.

Happy Republic day to one and all :)


The only possible way to enjoy this flick is to bang your head against the wall, allow some internal hemorrhaging of the brain, let a bunch of your brain cells die and once you are officially mentally retarded, perhaps then you *MIGHT* enjoy this film.

The only saving grace was the story between Raju and Stephanie. Govinda was excellent in the role of the cab driver and so was the Brit girl. Perhaps if they would have created the whole movie on their escapades in India and how they eventually fall in love would have made it a much more enjoyable film.

The only reason I gave it a 3 rating is because of Govida and his ability as an actor when it comes to comedy.

Juhi Chawla and Anil Kapoor were wasted needlessly. Plus the scene at Heathrow of the re-union was just too much to digest. Being an international traveler in the post 9/11 world, Anil Kapoor would have got himself shot much before he even reached the sky bridge to profess his true love :) But then again the point of the movie was to defy logic, gravity, physics and throw an egg on the face of the *GENERAL* audience.

Watch it at your own peril. At least I know I have been scarred for life :(


Six for the price of one! So it is a bonanza time for Cinegoers. Isn't it? Here it is not one, not two but all SIX-love stories, an ensemble cast of top stars of bollywood, plus all stories in the genre of your favorite top directors Johar, Bhansali, Chopra et al. You will get to see every damn type of love story that you enjoyed or rather tolerated for years now. So no big deal for you. Do you need anything more than this? No sir, thank you. Why sir? Enough is enough. Please spare us. They signed every top star that they manage to sign, whether required or not, so they end up making a circus of stars, believe it or not. Too crowded Every thing depicted here is exactly how it is prescribed in bollywood textbook of romances. Plus you have to justify the length given to each story, as each has stars. Therefore, it is too long-three hours plus. The gags are filmy. Characters are filmy. Problems, Barriers, situations, resolution  yes you guessed it right, again. filmy-tried and tested. Same hundreds of dancers dancing in colorful costumes in background. Why they have no other work to do? All couples are sugary-sweet, fairy tale type, Picture perfect. All are good looking. Each story beginning in a perfect way and therefore should ends also in that impossible perfect manner? Too haphazard. You can't connect to a single story. Here you have everything that you already seen a million times. Bloody fake, unreal, escapist abnormal stories considered normal for more than hundred years since evolution of this Indian cinema. What a mockery of sensibilities of today's audience? Yes it could have worked as a parody if he just paid tribute to love-stories of yesteryear but alas even that thing is not explored. At least, Director Nikhil Advani should have attempted one unconventional, offbeat love story but then what will happen to the tradition of living up to the mark of commercial bollwood potboiler brigade? Oh! Somebody has to carry on, no. Imagine on one hand audience finds it difficult to sit through one such love story and here we have six times the pain. I mean six damn stories. I mean double the fun of chopra's Mohabbatein (Year 2000) In this age and time, get something real, guys. We are now desperate to see some not so colorful people and not so bright stories Oh, What have you said just now- come on, that is entertainment. My advice, please don't waste your time henceforth reading such reviews. Go instead, have some more such entertainment! Thank you.


this is a terrible, terrible film!!!!!!!!!

first of all TOOO long. the longest movie i have ever seen.

the stories are all too Damn Over the Top!!!!

as a matter of fact there are too many stories that the Story line is Ruined.

the comedy wasn't Comedy!!!!! it wasn't funny at all....

the story is so repulsive and badly written that it doesnot matter if the characters live or die.......

i had some expectations from this movie......... but my expectations were crashed completely in the first few minutes......

the only thing good about this movie is the MUSIC...... and obviously Vidya Balan. she gives the best performance and stands out among all the senior actors...... she's just a new comer and yet she shines and makes the rest of the cast look so Pathetic!!!!! Govinda and the Blonde who playes his love interest also help saving this Disastrous movie. Govinda perfectly fits in the role of the Taxi driver. and the Blonde also gives a very subtle and consistent performance....

another Talented actress Ayesha Takiya is completely wasted in this movie!!!! so is priyanka!!!!!!!!! Akshay does his role well but it seemed too over the top!!!!! Anil and Juhi are also totally wasted......

the only one not wasted is Salman Because he has No Talent what so ever to be wasted!!!!!!!!!

all in all this is a very Impossible movie with Mishmashed screenplay and TOOO Masladar that the storyline is shaped according to the stupid comedy scenes. imagine how stupid this movie is!!!!!!

3/10 it is four hours long!!!! think and RETHINK before going to the cinemas!!!!! better Avoid it!!!!!


this movie has lot of downsides and thats all i could see. it is painfully long and awfully directed. i could see whole audience getting impatient and waiting for it to end. run time is way over 3 hrs which could have been edited to less then 2 hrs.

transition between stories is average. most people confessed being on seating expecting something better to come out.

its funny only in pockets. ambitious project and a below par execution. govinda does a fair job, anil kapoor disappointed me, rest we as expected. if u r expecting anything close to babel or love actually then its no where close.


I have been waiting for this movie a long time. Especially because Juhi Chawla is in this, she's a great actress.

This movie contains six stories. It's a new concept flew over from Hollywood. So it's not a new item.

1. Khamini (priyanka chopra) is a dancer. She wants to get famous and makes up a boyfriend to let news reporters be interested in her. But then Rahul (Salman Khan) appears and he claims to be her boyfriend.

Priyanka Chopra is still not a good actress. When she yells, I get annoyed. Salman khan cannot play comic roles. But in his serious parts he is marvelous.

2. Vinay (Anil Kapoor) is married to Seema (Juhi Chawla). He gets in a midlife crisis and gets attracted to a much younger woman, with forgetting what he really has in life; his wife and kids.

Anil kapoor en Juhi are natural born actors / actresses. They are great. But this story is to thin for them.

3. Shiven (Akshaye Khanna) is going to get married to Gia (Ayesha Takia), but he gets cold feet and blows the wedding off.

4. Ashutosh (Joh Abraham) is married to Tehzeeb (Vidya Balan). She gets an accident and suffers a memory loss. Now she doesn't know that she loves her husband anymore.

5. Raju (Govinda) is a cab driver. He meets Stephani (Shannon Esrechowitz) who is a white woman who is in love with an Indian male but he is about to get married with an Indian woman. Raju has to bring Staphani to that man, but falls in love with her.

I never liked Govinda's movies. He is very annoying, not funny. But in this movie I liked him very much, like he has been growing up the last years.

6. Oh yes! There is Sohail Khan! He plays Ram Dayal who is just married to Phoolwati (Isha Koppikar). He want to get some serious action with her, but every time her family comes in between.

Sohail Khan is not a handsome actor, but he is funny! I like his movies.

Now here's the problem. All these stories aren't interesting. To make one story from six not interesting stories does not make the whole movie interesting! Here and there the stories touch each other, but is not significant for the characters.

My conclusion; Priyanka cannot act! Loose that woman in the bollywood industry. Sohail Khan should make more movies, this role for him was too small. Salman Khan cannot act comic roles, but real serious movies. That's written on his life as an actor. This movie sucks, and is a waste of a cast of good actors and actresses like Anil Kapoor, Juhi Chawla, Akshaya Khanna and John Abraham.

It's just like you have the ability to make a movie with Amitabh Bachchan, and you only let him sing a lullaby.


I was so excited and hyped up about watching this film when the promos first came out in November! It looked awesome and the songs! I was quite disappointed when I went to watch it! This is a film which weaves 6 couples together. It has a multi cast of 12 people! A huge amount of stars have worked on this film. I think the director, Nikhil Advani, has not managed the situation well and should not have had many people in this movie as this would of made it easier for him. Compared to Nikhil's directorial Debut 'Kal Ho Naa Ho' , 'Salaam-e-Ishq' falls quite behind. I think Nikhil should have a smaller star cast. I think the best factors of this film is the songs! The songs are excellent and I think that all of the songs are awesome, Shankar-Ehsaan-Loy done an excellent job and have done an excellent jobs over the years. I think the ratings of this movie may go up because of the excellent songs! One thing I was disappointed with, is that the director should not have included nudity in this film which is done by Sohail Khan and Isha Koppikar. I found this extremely rude watching this with family! Although, some may find this nude as comedy, it is not something you would want to watch with parents! I think the best acting was performed by Salman and Priyanka Overall, I think its an alright movie!


Another big star cast, another glamour's set, another reputed director, another flick filled with songs that's topping the chart buster, but alas what's missing at the day end is a story that every moviegoer expects of from such a big budget motion picture. So much hype is what that was lurking around the movie before it's' red carpet premiere. A hype which went to an extent where Anil Kapoor envisages that the movie would be one of the finest love stories ever made after Dilwale Dulhaniya Le Jayenge. Well Anilji, which movie were you speaking of? Well the plot of the movie is about 6 different couples and 12 different people, who have a total different stance towards life, but despite their different approach towards life they all have one common problem, that's LOVE. Well indeed a luring theme. But little did we expect that the movie would be such boredom that it will let down the last expectation the audience would have from such a multistarrer movie. These are kinda movies which I totally abhor because after spending a hefty buck for a multiplex ticket I get locked in the theatre for 4 hours just waiting in agony for the climax.

The trouble begins right from the start. The director gets so confused with the plot that somewhere even he gets baffled as to how to share the time slot to six different star casts. Some of the couples like Anil Kapoor-Juhi and Sohail Khan-(Whoever the female is opposite to him) just doesn't make any sense for their existence in the movie. Salman (Who calls himself rahul in a weird manner for the entire movie. Well something like Rahoooooool) again as usual tries to be extra cool with his Videsi kinda Hindi accent. Hey Sallu Bhai, now that Aish is getting married, at least go get some tip from Abhishek to improve your acting abilities. A simple striptease wouldn't make the movie a box office hit every time. And Anilji stop shaving your trade mark beard or you look totally like a eunuch. And smooching a girl of your daughters' age just looks as uncool as watching Jack Nicholson in a romantic movie. And please Nikhilji avoid putting such superfluous scenes in a movie that is totally not needed for the shot.

The other bigger flaw in the movie was that there wasn't any perfect synchronization between the stories of different couples. Every story itself looks as if it is taken from different flicks, put together to form a sadistic plot of Salaam-E-Ishq. Bollywood still has to learn a lot from movies like Snatch, Memento where the director knows the perfect art of threading the different unrelated sequences to form a perfect blended storyline.

Somewhere while I was evaluating the pre-release movie reviews someone predicted that the movie wouldn't do good because the title of this movie adds up to the number 28, and 28 is considered a bad number in Numerology. But I totally take my stand by saying the movie will fail not coz of its Numerology defects, but because of the myriads of flaw that persisted in the movie. And when director like Nikhil Advani can make such major blunders in the entire storyline of the movie, any wonder wouldn't have saved the movie from bombing at the Box Office.

My suggestion for all you guys is, please avoid watching this movie at any cost. It isn't worth a pie that you pay for the ticket. There indeed are better movies on theater screens currently which are worth watching more than Salaam-E-Ishq.


After seeing only half of the film in school back in November, today, I saw that it was on Flix channel and decided to watch it to see the rest of it and to write a new review on it.

The book that the film is based on, Hatchet, is OK. This is a terrible adaption of it though.

Awful (and I mean awful) acting, bad dialogue, and average cinematography make up this terrible adaption of Hatchet.

The film starts off Brian who is the cliché image of a late 80s teen (sporting a mullet, banging his head to cheap 80s rock music) and his mother driving in a car for him to get on a plane to fly up to see his estranged Dad (his parents are divorced...now cue the dramatic pause.) Now Brian has said goodbye to Mom and dog and is flying up to see his father. The pilot is a fat, ugly, rude man (wasn't like that in the book) who after 2 minutes in the air, has a heart attack and dies. In the book it goes into more detail with the pilot having more pains and it seemed to be that they were in the air much longer before the pilot had his heart attack.

The plane (within another two minutes) has gone empty on fuel (leaving us, the viewers, to assume that he's been up there for hours even though the sun hasn't changed position and the scenery looks EXACTLY the same.) Now's he's crashed landed.

This is the point in the movie where everything is a lot different then it was in the book. In the book it said his jacket was torn to shreds but in the movie it is perfectly fine with no tears or rips (looks like he just bought it), it never said he climbed a mountain, saw a wolf, and fell asleep up there on the mountain, it never said he was attacked by a bear (it said a moose but not a bear), it never said he eats the several bugs that he does, it never mentions the second tornado or that he learned to get those sparrows, skin them, and eat them or that little fish farm trap that he makes (that is destroyed by one of the tornadoes) nor does it mention him hurting his ribs from one of the tornadoes.

I don't even think you can call what was depicted in the film a tornado. All it was was just a windstorm that knocked down several of his things.

My favorite part of this camp fest was Brian's lame flashbacks (that are never mentioned in the book) especially the cliché scene of Brian waking up, walking over to the window and seeing his Dad (with all of his things packed that can all perfectly fit into just the back of his truck) leaving and screams "DAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAADDDDDDDDD!!!!" (yet of course his father didn't hear him even though he was just right outside) and he punches his fist through the window (wtf?)

The ending is the only thing that is close to what happened in the book (I said close.) In the book I think one of the key things that the rescue pilot said to Brian when he landed was "you're the kid who they've been looking for! They stopped months ago..." yet they left that line out in the movie.

There's a pathetic epilogue with Brian (somehow without counseling or therapy) getting back to normal with his family. I think we were supposed to assume that they were getting together for Thanksgiving (because they had a turkey on the counter.) Then it shows his temporary home (for what, in the movie, seemed like three days, but in the book was for several months) and his hatchet, still in a tree where he left it (also didn't happen in the book) showing where he carved a message, so perfectly done: "HOME" (where we really supposed to believe that he carved that that perfectly with just that hatchet?)

No quote can sum this movie up better then when Enid from Ghost World said "this is so bad it's gone past good and back to bad again." Perfect description of this movie.

I wouldn't recommend it to somebody (who hasn't read the book) and are just looking to watch a movie nor would I to somebody who has read the book (because they'll be disappointed and bored to death.

For those who have read the book, leave what your imagination created as the movie. This is awful and will bring down your thoughts on the book.

1/10


I had never read Gary Paulsen's novel, Hatchet, for which 'A Cry in the Wild' is the adaptation of, so I can't make any comparisons to the book. I will, however, say that as a film on its own, adaptation or no adaptation, it was an underdeveloped adventure that provides no major explanation of its few characters.

Think of 'A Cry in the Wild' as a less luxurious, teenage mountaineer (was Quincy, California the only place this was filmed?) version of 'Cast Away.' Jared Rushton is 13-year-old Brian Roebson, a kid headed on a small plane to visit his father, until the craft crashes over some deserted mountain terrain, leaving the kid stranded for quite a while and having to defend himself.

There are basically three parts to the film. The obvious being the ten or fifteen minute introduction of the characters, namely Brian and his mom.

The next third of the movie (which really consumes nearly all of the film) is that of Brian "roughing it." These scenes contain no particularly amazing action, nothing spectacular other than lots of beautiful cinematography of a beautiful Yukon landscape. Nothing to put you on edge, no real encounters (except a brisk confrontation with a cub), and no major dilemmas to initiate some sort of enjoyment or connection with the character on the screen. You might even feel briefly bored with the passage of time as we witness Brian dealing with his situation through first, primitive means, and then more improved ones (using tools, etc) for his survival. It is more like the ordinary time that passes if you were actually stuck in the situation, and that is pretty much about it. In other words, they put no meat on the Paulsen's words when they translated them into a visual media.

And, of course, the third part of the movie is his rescue.

There is a subplot that continuously seeks to make itself known during this time, however. Some conflict between Brian and his parents that created a rocky, awkward relationship between them. However, for the most part, it is only explained in brief, intermittent, minimal dialog flashbacks that look more like a back story for a music video. Any minute, the singer from Jefferson Starship, should chime in an start singing 'Sara.' Other than what the viewer can draw from the implications, or guess for his own need to fill the gaps in the narrative, we get a very underdeveloped back story which was probably necessary to enjoy at least part of this film and create a connection to the characters, whether or not it really had anything to do with Brian's survival adventure in the third part of the movie. These are the flaws in the narrative that through the viewer into a stupor as he struggles to find out what the heck those people there on the screen are doing and, for me, almost done to the point of screaming at the television to say something and tell me more!

It certainly was not, for me, a good adventure tale. But, for fans of Jared Rushton, it was one of the last few movies he made. So, watch it purely for nostalgia, if nothing else.


- Bad Stuff: This movie is real crap. Bad stunts for one thing, they looked so fake I thought this was "The Twilight Zone". The flashbacks are pretty much useless. One part of the movie he thinks taking his anger out on a window will make his life better. I wanna know the casting director and if he was high because the acting, even from the adults was horrid. A kissing scene in this movie even sucked. This movie killed the book. The book was great. I highly do not recommend this movie. Not even for educational purposes.

- Good Stuff: I don't know what I can say really. There is some suspense parts that get you going, but they are quickly shot down by the bad stunt work and acting.

- My Verdict: Do not watch.


I wish I could give this movie a zero. Cheesy effects and acting. The only reason to see this movie is so you can see how bad it is. Lets start with the kid who plays Brian. What a geek! I couldn't believe the mullet! Then there was the talking to himself. I guess they couldn't just have the movie be silent, but still. Of course they had to have him skinny-dipping too, not something I wanted to see. But Jared gave a great performance, compared to the special effects department. Everything from the bear to the crash was something I could do myself, and better. I seriously doubt that Gary Paulsen had anything to do with the production, seeing as the movie was not even called Hatchet. Finally, I do not think the writer had ever read the book, seeing as nothing was the same. I think the book was great, but this movie stunk like a smelly goat!


This clunker of a film sets a new standard for bad filmmaking. Jared Rushton gives an adequate performance of a very poorly-created character in an ill-fated movie, thereby creating a net effect of a very bad movie. The film's main thrust is how a boy's temporary excursion into the Canadian wilderness after surviving a plane crash solo allows the disgruntled adolescent to deal with his anguish over discovering his mother's extramarital affair. Unfortunately it turns into a bizarre collage of random "survival events" (including two especially hokey scenes involving fighting a bear) and strange hallucinations that make you wonder if this kid isn't just sitting in an alley somewhere on pot dreaming up this whole movie (and what a nightmare it is!). Furthermore, despite the heralds of some reviewers of the family viewability of the film, there are several scenes not suitable for very young children or family viewing, including a graphic scene of the dead pilot underwater with one of his eyes apparently exploded.

All in all, a terrible movie that nobody should be subjected to, much less innocent kids.


I came away from this movie with the feeling that it could have been so much better. Instead of what should be a gripping, tense story of a boy's fight for survival in the wilderness, it comes off as a National Geographic documentary meets Columbia sportswear ad.

The film begins with Brian (Jared Rushton) preparing for a journey by plane to see his father. His mother fortuitously gives him the curious choice of a hatchet as a going-away gift (what's wrong with a Rubik's Cube?), little knowing how badly he will soon need it. Once in the air, the plane's pilot (a blink-and-you'll-miss-him cameo by Ned Beatty) suffers a fatal heart attack, leaving Brian helpless as the plane crashes into a lake. Extremely lucky to walk (or rather swim) away virtually unscathed, Brian must find shelter, food and hope for rescue.

Here is where the main problem with the movie begins. By the very nature of Brian's solitude, Jared has very few lines to speak, and so the film ought to have compensated by ratcheting up the tension of each scene. Instead, he is shown walking around, sitting around, and so on, with only a minimal sense of danger. As a result, too much reliance is placed on flashbacks to the parents' troubled marriage as the source of tension. These scenes merely get in the way and don't particularly add much to the story. Even worse, occasionally Jared  his face covered with mud - lets out a primal scream or two, which conjures up unfortunate parallels to `Predator.' Speaking of unfortunate, we could have done with being spared the sight of his mullet, but it presumably helped keep him warm at night.

Another disappointment is Pamela Sue Martin in a totally ineffectual performance as the mother. Both she and the father have very little impact in the movie. For instance, we are never shown how they react to news of Brian's disappearance, how they might be organizing rescue attempts, and so on. This is just one source of tension the film-makers would have done well to explore instead of spending so much time on events that happened before Brian embarked on his journey.


In my Lit. class we've just finished the book, Hatchet, and this movie is nothing like the book. (1) Brian never ate worms in the book. (2) He didn't know the pilot's name. (3) His mom was cheating on his father in a station wagon not in the woods where anyone could see. (4) The man the mother is cheating with doesn't have black hair, he has blonde.

Now for the unrealistic parts of the movie: (1) A thirteen year old can't punch his fist through a window in one punch.

And for the acting, the kid who played Brian was a horrible actor.

However, I do believe that the scenery was impressive, though I highly doubt the director even read the book.

This movie is good if you have not read the book Hatchet, by Gary Paulsen, but if you have, then begin a complaint letter to the director.


What horrible writing and acting. No personality. What, you can't make a good movie with a single character? Hmm, it was done in Castaway with self dialog.

So this kid goes on a trip to see his father. The kid, Jason, takes a plane and the pilot has a heart attack and dies mid-flight. So the kid crashes in a lake and survives. Then he runs around, surviving in the wilderness until he gets rescued.

During that time he fights a bear twice. The first time he fights it off in the lake. The second time he makes a spear out of a branch and spears the bear. Two shots of fake blood spurting out of the bear's chest reminded me of Monty Python's "The Holy Grail".

Also the kid decides to kick a porcupine with predictable results.

Gag.


Ever wanted to eat worms? Here's a 'documentary' to show you how! Yeah...The kid eats live worms! And that's about the most interesting part of the movie.

This movie has been pretty well summed up by previous reviewers as rather boring. I'm totally in agreement here. The movie just doesn't go anywhere....unless you're fond of worm eating! This is one movie it's almost impossible to write a spoiler for....because nothing much happens.

Now on the technical side: They should have given that kid a haircut. Who's he trying to look like anyway...Bozo the Clown. It was almost comical...I almost expected him to turn into the shaggy dog or something.

And on top of that; the kid was way too chunky to ever look hungry! Should have kept him off the junk food for a couple of weeks before filming.

All in all, this movie nearly put me to sleep. And my kids could only handle about 15 minutes before they left the scene for something more interesting.

I will admit that the scenery was very impressive. And had there been a decent story to go with it, it might have made a hit.

It did seem safe enough for kids to watch: The bear scenes and the 'oddball' eyeball were too weak to frighten most kids, and the brief 'skinny-dipping' scene didn't show anything.

I gave this one a very generous 3.


Ugh! Another one of those "fooled by the cover" DVDs. I expected some kind of action at least with bears, cats, & such on the cover. I got NOTHING! Bad movie!.

I forced myself to watch this all the way through thinking that eventually SOMETHING would happen...no luck.

Now the reason I gave this a 2 is because of the scenery; otherwise it sucked.

The kid was terrible, talking to himself (although I suppose they couldn't just run a movie with dumb music and no dialogue at all), doing his lame karate stances to a tree stump, threatening a raccoon, munching on worms, and (what a dumbass) kicking a porcupine. And he wouldn't be pulling those quills out that easily either...they stick like fishhooks. At least he fought the bear (weakly) a couple of times.

What was up with the flashback thing? It made a bad movie even worse. I wanted to see a survival movie, not some dramatic bs about a kid suffering thru divorce.

What else can I say? Well, maybe they should have had the bear eat the kid or something. At least that would have been more exciting.

People, don't waste your time on this one.


Marie Dressler carries this Depression-era drama about a kindly bank owner, which recently aired on TCM during their April Fools comedy month. If you come with the expectation of big laughs courtesy the Dressler-Polly Moran team, you'll be disappointed, as this is really a very downbeat film. It's also very poorly made, surprisingly so considering it came from MGM. Leonard Smith's bare bones cinematography is strictly from the 'set up the camera and don't move it' school, frequently to the detriment of the cast, who find themselves delivering lines off screen (it's like a pan and scan print before such existed!) or having their heads cut off. The film doesn't even have a credited director, underlying the apparent fly by night nature of the production. Overall, it's an unsatisfying mess, with Dressler frequently over-emoting and only that bizarre, final reel dash to the bathroom to set it apart.