First of all I thought it was naughty of them to say in the credits that the story and screenplay were by Preston Sturges. Sturges was one of the better Hollywood screenwriters until his talent faded and he retired. However, it wasn't the Preston Sturges, it was Preston Sturges, Jr. The story was essentially based on Robert Louis Stevenson's short story "The Bottle Imp". A good man comes into possession of an evil object that will grant him any wish but which will ultimately doom him to hell. That's fine. Nobody said screenwriters had to be original. The actors are generally pretty competent given the mediocre writing that they had to translate onto the screen. My biggest complaint comes with the ending. The hero thinks he has discovered a way out of his dilemma but tries to solve the problem in a somewhat different way in an attempt to save an innocent person. At first this seems to have worked but true to the code of the modern horror film, they feel they have to provide one last dollop of horror at the very end of the film. This is a stupid convention. The older horror films got along just fine with allowing the hero to win out at the end. There is nothing wrong with good triumphing over evil no matter what the current crop of film makers seems to think. You can give the audience a good healthy scare and still make them feel happy at the end. In fact, I think it's preferable.


On the surface, this movie would appear to deal with the psychological process called individuation, that is how to become a true self by embracing the so-called 'dark' side of human nature. Thus, we have the Darkling, a classic shadowy devilish creature desperately seeking the company (that is, recognition) of men, and the story revolves around the various ways in which this need is handled, more or less successfully.

However, if we dig a little deeper, we find that what this movie is actually about is how you should relate to your car like you would to any other person: - in the opening scene, the main character (male car mechanic fallen from grace)is collecting bits and pieces from car wrecks with his daughter, when a car wreck nearly smashes the little girl. Lesson #1: Cars are persons embodied with immortal souls, and stealing from car wrecks is identical with grave robbery. The wicked have disturbed the dead and must be punished. - just after that, another character (Rubin) buys a car wreck intending to repair it and sell it as a once-lost-now-found famous race-car and is warned by the salesman. Lesson #2: Just like any other person, a car has a unique identity that cannot be altered nor replaced. In addition, there is the twist that Rubin actually sees a hidden quality in what most people would just think of as junk, but eventually that quality turns out to be a projection of Rubin's own personal greed for more profit. Lesson #3: Thou shalt never treat thy car as a means only, but always as an end in itself. - then we have the scene where the main character is introduced to Rubin and, more importantly, Rubin's car: The main character's assessment of the car's qualities is not just based on its outer appearance, but also by a thorough look inside the engine room. Lesson #4: A car is not just to be judged by its looks, it is what is inside that really counts. There is punishment in store for those who do not keep this lesson in mind, as we see in the scene where another man tries to sell Rubin a fake collector's car. This scene by the way also underlines the importance of lesson #3.

There are numerous other examples in the movie of the 'car=person'-theme, and I am too tired now to bother citing all of them, but the point remains (and I guess this is what I'm really trying to say) that this movie is fun to watch if you have absolutely nothing else to do - or, if you're a car devotee.


...Ok I have read about this film somewhere in the internet, and many criticized on how bad and sucks this film was. And I couldn't have been more agree about it. Then after that I saw this film on DVD, I was thinking twice about this and then came commercial of this film on TV. Luckily I spared my money for this pieces of crap. I was sacrificed my sleeps for this film and soon it turned out that this film couldn't make me satisfy. So I can't be judging on how the film was made, but anyway... it still sucks. As for those who liked this film, I would apologize for flaming this film and telling on how sucks this film is. I don't know what do YOU think about this film?


I checked this movie out based on a favorable review on this page. It is slow moving and the payoff is a four star dud..The only mystery here is how Oscar® winner F. Murray Abraham got involved with such a lousy script!


Maybe it's the dubbing, or maybe it's the endless scenes of people crying, moaning or otherwise carrying on, but I found Europa '51 to be one of the most overwrought (and therefore annoying) films I've ever seen. The film starts out promisingly if familiarly, as mom Ingrid Bergman is too busy to spend time with her spoiled brat of a son (Sandro Franchina). Whilst mummy and daddy (bland Alexander Knox) entertain their guests at a dinner party, the youngster tries to kill himself, setting in motion a life changing series of events that find Bergman spending time showering compassion on the poor and needy. Spurred on by Communist newspaper editor Andrea (Ettore Giannini), she soon spends more time with the downtrodden than she does with her husband, who soon locks her up in an insane asylum for her troubles. Bergman plays the saint role to the hilt, echoing her 1948 role as Joan of Arc, and Rossellini does a fantastic job of lighting and filming her to best effect. Unfortunately, the script pounds its point home with ham-fisted subtlety, as Andrea and Mom take turns declaiming Marxist and Christian platitudes. By the final tear soaked scene, I had had more than my fill of these tiresome characters. A real step down for Rossellini as he stepped away from neo-realism and further embraced the mythical and mystical themes of 1950's Flowers of St. Francis.


Poor Ingrid suffered and suffered once she went off to Italy, tired of the Hollywood glamor treatment. First it was suffering the torments of a volcanic island in STROMBOLI, an arty failure that would have killed the career of a less resilient actress. And now it's EUROPA 51, another tedious exercise in soggy sentiment.

Nor does the story do much for Alexander KNOX, in another thankless role as her long-suffering husband who tries to comfort her after the suicidal death of their young son. At least this one has better production values and a more coherent script than STROMBOLI.

Bergman is still attractive here, but moving toward a more matronly appearance as a rich society woman. She's never able to cope over the sudden loss of her son, despite attempts by a kindly male friend. "Sometimes I think I'm going out of my mind," she tells her husband. A portentous statement in a film that is totally without humor or grace, but it does give us a sense of where the story is going.

Bergman is soon motivated to help the poor in post-war Rome, but being a social worker with poor children doesn't improve her emotional health and from thereon the plot takes a turn for the worse.

The film's overall effect is that it's not sufficiently interesting to make into a project for a major star like Bergman. The film loses pace midway through the story as Bergman becomes more and more distraught and her husband suspects that she's two-timing him. The story goes downhill from there after she nurses a street-walker through her terminal illness. The final thread of plot has her husband needing to place her for observation in a mental asylum.

Ingrid suffers nobly through it all (over-compensating for the loss of her son) but it's no use. Not one of her best flicks, to put it mildly.

Trivia note: If she wanted neo-realism with mental illness, she might have been better off accepting the lead in THE SNAKE PIT when it was offered to her by director Anatole Litvak!! It would have done more for her career than EUROPA 51.

Summing up: Another bleak indiscretion of Rossellini and Bergman.


I argued with myself whether to rent this or not. I'm always afraid of renting something I've never heard of (don't remember this being in theaters). Great cast...that's what tipped the scales. 30 minutes in, I almost stopped watching it. The first few minutes are fun to watch, but unbelievable. It only gets worse after that. The writers of this movie could do a little research on future projects if they want to make their movies even a little better. Or they could just try writing something just a little bit believable. I give it a 3....a 1 for the writing (only because there are words)and a 2 for being able to get so many good actors to agree to do this movie despite having to read the script. Oh my god this movie sucks.


i guess its possible that I've seen worse movies, but this one is a real stinker! the plot is unremarkable but thats not the worst of it. the directing is no where close to what you would expect from andy ching. he's capable of good work but failed to pull this movie together.

angie harmon, playing the female lead as a reporter dogging into who's behind the assassination of the president, truly butchered the role. there was no chemistry with gooding, her demeanor was flat and wooden, and the 5 inch spike heels she wore throughout the movie were absurd. this outing for harmon places her solidly at the bottom of the "b" list.

and what was cuba gooding thinking??? he has to his credit a number of outstanding performances, but this was far beneath what we've come to expect from him.

poor james woods and burt reynolds. poor poor poor poor poor.


Cuba Gooding Jr. is a secret service agent who blames himself over the assassination of the U.S. President, i'll point out straight away that this is not the type of role that this very talented actor is noted for, and this film shows us why. He teams up with a persistent news reporter (Angie Harmon) to uncover the conspiracy surrounding the president's death, and so on, blah, blah, blah.

Even with a cast of James Woods, Cuba Gooding Jr, Anne Archer and Angie Harmon 'End Game' fails to grab your attention, plain and simple; some of the action is good, the acting isn't all bad and the story although clichéd and done before could have lead to an entertaining and enjoyable movie - WELL IT DOESN'T! The writing of the script and the direction makes absolutely sure of that, at no point does it suck you into the story or make you give the slightest thought to any of the characters.

4/10 It's Boring, Predictable and Dull.


I spent almost two hours watching a movie that I thought, with all the good actors in it, would be worth watching. I couldn't believe it when the movie ended and I had absolutely no idea what had happened.....I was mad because I could have used that time doing something else....I tried to figure it all out, but really had no clue. Thanks to those who figured it out and have explained it....right or wrong, it's better than not knowing anything!! Who was the lady in the movie with dark hair that we saw a couple of times driving away? How did First Lady know that her husband was cheating on her? At the end of the movie Kate said she would eventually find out the truth. Does this mean that we're going to be subjected to End Game 2?


End Game started well, the least said about the end the better. it seemed like things we're happening just to keep the plot going, for example the reporter who at first is a very inquisitive, intelligent person, half way through does something really stupid and totally out of character, we are given no reason for this apart from, the next scene wouldn't make sense without it. The whole story could have been told in about 30 minutes, it would have made an average TV political drama The brilliant Cuba Gooding Jr. is very watchable however and James Woods does an admirable job considering.

The end game was honestly one of the worst films I've ever seen......and that's saying something, I've seen Gigli.


Please, help the economy - spend your money elsewhere! The synopsis of the movie is: the First Lady has her husband assassinated because he was cheating on her. That's it. Undetected by anyone, except Cuba and Angie, she designs and implements a vast assassination conspiracy which no one knows about...and gets away completely free.

Some specific points are particularly hilarious: While standing in front of the president, Cuba a deflects the assassin's bullet...which then enters the back of the president's head.

Cuba and Angie watch film from a news camera, and they see...a clue. They go to great lengths to protect the film, believing that they are the only people that have a copy of this very public film.

Cuba speaks with a presidential staff member. The PSM comments that there was no conspiracy. Cuba claims there was more than one person involved. The PSM then rants that the conspiracy includes the FBI, the CIA, and the NSA. Gosh, I wonder is the PSM is involved.

Ms Archer, the First Lady, is a craptacular artist. Cuba can't make out a painting, and she says, "You're too close...stand back...look from a different perspective, look from my perspective." Can anyone miss THAT clue?


Predictable, hackneyed & poorly written. Foolishly I reasoned such a prominent cast would not be involved unless it had merit. I guess competition amongst actors is so intense these days (and will only get worse) that one cannot pick and choose much any more. Early on we were given an inkling who was was instrumental in the assassination and we had it rammed down our throats ever since. The movie lacked intrigue, giving us little insight into the victim and only one possible motive for the murder. Some of the discourse was, frankly, embarrassing! It's hard to believe anyone would even consider, let alone commit to, the spending of tens of millions of dollars to make this tripe.


This movie was craptacular. I was so emotionally uninvolved in every single character that the movies' biggest antagonist was, in fact, myself. I played it beautifully throughout; promising myself I would walk away, but only drinking another beer hoping it would auto-magically transform into something engrossing along the way. Even in this state, I couldn't help but notice that Cuba's acting was as flimsy as tracing paper. His obsessive dedication to his job was unconvincingly done as well as his one night binge after the failure of his own idiot standards. Burt came on the screen as a General, that's right, a General (who wears too much makeup). I fell into a frighteningly fast binge to rival Cuba's, except mine was real and I stubbed my toe. Recompense! Recompense my stubbed toe!


Some guy gets whacked. Right out in plain sight this other guy shoots him. He's got some bodyguards and they whack the killer, but a reporter gets interested. She goes to the hospital where they took the guy who got whacked. She walks in, and corners one bodyguard, but he doesn't feel like talking. I can't figure out why. It's not like anyone else is interested. She's the only reporter there. Anyway, her editor discourages her from working on this lame story. But hey, she does anyway. She goes to see the killer's sister & mom. A few minutes after she leaves they get whacked big time-- somebody blows up their trailer-- huge ball of fire. Then she searches out the bodyguard from the hospital. She finds him hungover on his boat, but a minute later they're both underwater sucking on a scuba tank 'cause three guys are trying to whack them (and have blown up the boat big time-- huge ball of fire). The reporter and the bodyguard whack two of the guys who are trying to whack them.

In the course of the next hour another guy gets whacked crossing the street, there's a shootout with several stiffs in a warehouse, some car chases with wreckage & death, a fake suicide, etc. etc. Lotsa stiffs, all kindsa carnage.

Great stuff, but what the reporter and the bodyguard can't figure is: why in hell the original guy got whacked. What's the motivation? Of course, it might help us to figure out why the reporter's even interested. Through almost all of this she's the only reporter on the story. Nobody else in the media cares. Not even with all the big fireballs and dead bodies. True, the original guy who got whacked wasn't exactly a celebrity. His job was a little bit dull. He was just the President. Yeah, the one who lives in the White House. Oh, and the bodyguard is a Secret Service agent.

Is that the spoiler?

It should be. After all there are no TV cameras, no other print reporters, no bloggers... just another one of those police blotter crimes...

So what's the spoiler?

Lemme think...

No! Wait! The spoiler is that his wife did it! Yeah... the First Lady. She was p---ed because the President was fooling around. And she gets away with it. She's really sharp, huh? But how the hell could anybody ever figure that out? Why would anyone bother? After all, only one reporter is even interested.

I give this move a "1". It was so dumb I just had to keep watching. And it only got dumber! That's the real spoiler! But even though I've told you, you've got to see it to believe it!


So I'm looking to rent a DVD and I come across this movie called 'End Game'. It stars James Woods and Cuba Gooding JR and has the synopsis of a taught political thriller. Well worth a look then. Or so I thought.

Boy, was I wrong.

End Game has just about the most ridiculous plot I have ever had the displeasure of enduring. Now being something of a whodunnit, I can't really tear into it as I would like without 'ruining' it for those who have yet to experience this monstrosity. But questions such as 'Why has he/she/they done this?', and 'Where on earth did they get the resources to pull this off?' are all too abundant following the film's unintentionally hilarious conclusion.

As for the acting - you know those films where you can almost feel that an actor's realised that they've made a terrible mistake in signing on for a movie, and this then shows in their performance? This is one of those. Accompany this with a laughable script and seriously flawed, irritating direction and you have the recipe for cinematic poison.

Of course, this didn't make it to the cinema, and for the same reason you should not allow it into your living room; it is appalling.


How unfortunate, to have so many of my "a" list, and good "b" list actors agree to do this movie, but they did, and that is what sucked me into watching it. I had never heard of this movie, but there was Cuba Gooding Jr. right on the DVD cover, and James Woods in the background how bad can it be? In a word Very! This movie starts o.k. has some twists and turns, then just lays an egg. The ending was so weak, it was as if the writer got called away and his 4 year old son sat down at the type writer and hacked out the ending. How ironic a for a movie titled "The end game" to have such a poor one. These are the types of movies that can move "a" list actors to the "b" list in hurry. I hope Cuba Gooding JR, and James Woods don't make a habit of this.


SPOILERS AHEAD

This is one of the worst movies ever made - it's that simple. There is not one redeeming quality about this movie. The first 10 minutes are quite tricky - they actually lead you to believe that this film will be shocking and will have you on the edge of your seat. Instead, you will spend 83 minutes punching yourself while watching stolen and poorly made scenes run without any organization. The lake was ridiculous, looked like an aquarium, and had the same plant in different parts of the lake bed. Characters show their advanced teleportation powers, for example Alex Thomas who falls into the lake (drunk), and then ends up on his boat in an impossible position. Angie Harmon put up a pitiful performance as Kate, made worse by the space-time continuum rupturing dialog that appears to have been written at the last minute by a fifth grader. An example of this would be when she said, "Flashlight!" in such a stupid manner that it shows the threshold of how much a human body can cringe before it snaps in half. Finally, the editing of this movie was by far the most bizarre and horrific that I have ever seen. It was like the cameramen were a bunch of chimps who had been given camcorders by scientists. An example of this would be when we suddenly get a closeup of the headlight on Alex's car. I would bet that there was little to no time spent editing this movie. The ending was absolutely pathetic. The writers were obviously trying to create some sort of mysterious plot line that made the viewer say, "oh yeah!" Instead, we're left to view some dumb painting of a spider that somehow fits into the story line. Unfortunately, there is not one perspective in the millions out there that could save this movie from being a festering piece of crap.

I give this a .5 out of 10, the .5 being from the fact that this movie was recorded on film instead of becoming a picture book.


I didn't expect a movie as good as "In The Line of Fire" or an episode of "24", but it looked like this movie was made for TV and did a mediocre job at best. The (good) cast couldn't disguise the fact that the plot was all too predictable and actors had to struggle (they really try their best I think) through their lines of bad script, giving their rather flat characters any extras. When I watched the movie I got the feeling that I had seen most of this in other (better) movies. In it you had car chases, big shootouts, romance, plot twists etc. etc; This movie has none.

** Spoiler** As soon as you see another woman talking into the phone to Cuba's character, you know who's behind all this and all the hints you're being given ("you stand too close to the president, see it from my perspective.." ) sound silly.

If it were up to me (and maybe it's a good thing that it isn't) I would rewrite the plot like this:

First lady orders the murder of her husband because she is sick and tired of writing checks to Cuba all the time.


This movie looked good - good cast, evergreen topic and an explosive opening. It went downhill from there. Why was it filmed by hand held camera? It shakes, judders, part captures scenes and simply confuses the viewer. A poor choice indeed. As if this was not enough, the worst edit in memory assumes a drugged viewer - mandatory if you want to get any enjoyment from it at all. And then it commits the worst sin of all. After leading the viewer down all sorts of unlikely and implausible scenarios to the point of exhaustion, they roll credits without revealing the denouement - the ending - the payoff -like what the heck was the motive? How can you expect to succeed by making thrillers without an ending? Doh! This movie had great promise and ending up doing a face plant in the mud. What a waste of effort. Poor effort by writer and director.


I rented End Game, having never heard of it, but I'm fond of political thrillers so I thought I'd give it a shot. After doing some research on the movie, I found that it had initially been intended for theatrical release, but instead had gone strait to DVD. After seeing it, I'm thinking, "no wonder." The movie is shocking in its unoriginality. The plot and the characters are perfunctory. I figured out whodunnit by the half way mark but the ending was a curve ball. I have to say, I didn't expect it to end quite the way it did, but that's not a point in its favor. The more predictable ending would have been preferable to one that is so bad. Perhaps the film makers saw how predictable the film was and so they decided to throw in a twist--even one that made the movie even worse.

Stay away. I want the $5.98 and my 107 minutes back.


Camera work - Why is the camera work in this movie so jumpy? This is annoying and distracting. Editing - the Flashes of the still pictures were way too short. Many of the other scenes were too short also. Just flashes. Sound - the background music was way too loud and covered up the voices. One should not have to rewind and replay to catch what was said. Doesn't anybody check these things and make them do it over again. Please reduce the volume of the background music in future. Is adjustment of the relative sound levels the job of the editor, Julia Wong? The plot had way too many loose ends. The basic story line had potential. I think the film needed more work. Was it rushed? Perhaps they ran out of money. Like a lot of movies, it started out great but just petered out toward the end. I really don't understand this, you know you have the story board before it goes into production so why doesn't all the loose ends get taken care of in the storyboard.

Sorry to be so critical.


You have to figure that when the star's name is listed wrong in the opening credits, you are not in for a good time (the credit reads "Cuba Gooding, J.R."). Some nice car chase, shoot 'em up, blow 'em up action if ALL you want is action, because the relationship to what plot exists is tenuous at best, and completely unbelievable. The motivations of the characters, especially that of Gooding's at the end, are worse then unbelievable, they are irrational when they are not hopelessly muddled. All I can think is that Andy Cheng must be a really nice guy to get this many good actors into this foul a project (he can't have something on all of them, can he?).


This ranks as one of the worst movies I've seen in years. Besides Cuba and Angie, the acting is actually embarrassing. Wasn't Archer once a decent actress? What happened to her? The action is decent but completely implausible. The make up is so bad it's worth mentioning. I mean, who ever even thinks about the makeup in a contemporary feature film. Someone should tell the make up artist, and the DOP that you're not supposed to actually see it. The ending is a massive disappointment - along the lines of "and then they realized it was all a dream"

Don't waste your time or your money. You're better off just staring into space for 2 hours.


This movie was like a bad indie with A-list talent. The plot was silly, all the way to the end. It reminded me very much of something churned out for the home video market in the 1980's. I would have given it a one, but there were brief moments when you could see the actors really really straining to make this worthwhile. I think the worst thing was the underwater scene's held off of the dock. The underwater lighting seemed to come from no were, and whenever someone we were supposed to care about was close to running out of air, this air tank would kind of appear. I would avoid this, unless there is nothing else on the shelf. Good Day.


It had all the clichés of movies of this type and no substance. The plot went nowhere and at the end of the movie I felt like a sucker for watching it. The production was good; however, the script and acting were B-movie quality. The casting was poor because there were good actors mixed in with crumby actors. The good actors didn't hold their own nor did they lift up the others.

This movie is not worthy of more words, but I will say more to meet the minimum requirement of ten lines. James Wood and Cuba Gooding, Jr. play caricatures of themselves in other movies.

If you are looking for mindless entertainment, I still wouldn't recommend this movie.


MST 3000 should do this movie. It is the worst acted movie I have ever seen. First of all, you find out that the shooter has no bank account and no history since leaving the army in 1993 and pays his rent in cash. There is no way in hell that a person like that would ever be allowed to be that close to a president not to mention a high profile job. Also, the head of security for the POTHUS would not be so emotional that he would start drinking into a haze if the president was shot. This movie sucked. I cannot express the extremite that this movie was. Every single actor was terrible. Even the chick at the trailer park. I crap on this garbage. What a waste of time.


Flat characters that you do not and never will care about. Cringe-inducing dialogue at places. No twists (they think they have one, but if you didn't figure it out after about 40mins you're not too bright). Lots of well know actors in roles and performances that, fortunately for everyone involved, will be forgotten as soon as the end credits roll.

I don't mind 'slow' movies, but they've got to be going _somewhere_. This one doesn't.

The plot wasn't what made this a direct-to-DVD movie, that's just a rather convenient excuse to try and drum up some fake controversy.

The as-of-writing 37(!) ten (10) ratings must be from people involved with the production.


An ensemble of uninteresting and unlikeable characters twist and turn their way through a flimsy plot that might be interesting, if only you could bring yourself to care. This "twisting and turning" I speak of refers not to the story (which contains all the suspense of a recipe for tuna casserole) but to the director's inability to keep the characters' faces even remotely centered in the frame. On the other hand, Angie Harmon has very nice nostrils and left ear.

The only real surprise in the movie is the big names they convinced to do it. When you consider this movie was never released in theaters despite having an all-star cast, you might be inclined to think something stinks.

And indeed, it does.


This Movie had some great actors in it! Unfortunately they had forgotten how to act. I was hoping the movie would get better as it went along but the acting was so robotic it was doomed from the very start. It actually appeared that maybe the actors were reading from a script the whole time. Maybe it was the Musical score or the Director himself, but one thing is for sure the Make-up artist needs to get another job ! The Facial Powder was so thick you could see it caked on the actors faces ! Would not recommend this movie to anyone, no wonder it never hit the Theaters. Cuba Gooding Jr. / James Woods shame on you guys for not giving it your all. The Plot was great just needed a whole lot more.


Don't get fooled with all the big names like Burt Reynolds,James Woods and Anne Archer. They are just glorified extra's. Their scenes were probably filmed in one day or so. Whatever their motives for being in this movie, if you have an actor like James Woods you better make good use of him. To me this is a sign of bad direction through and through. The plot itself wasn't that bad. And the acting from most of the actors was above average. Cuba Gooding Jr. however was terrible. He was so unbelievable that I almost laughed at his dramatic scenes. And since this was meant as a serious movie that can't be a good thing. The action scenes were not bad,but they lacked that special punch to make it more exciting. Again better direction was needed. Also the pacing was wrong for a movie like this. It took the main character almost half an hour to get in action. For an action thriller of only 90 minutes that is far too slow. The only redeeming factor is Angie Harmon. She does her best to make it all work. Too bad the director left her hanging. Yes,this movie could have been much better with a great director. Andy Cheng is far too inexperienced as a director to pull it off. And for an action/stunt coordinator of his caliber you'd expect at least more exciting action scenes. Don't waste your time with this one. Avoid!


I am a big 1930's movie fan and will watch most anything that I see on Turner Classic Movies thats new for me. So I gave this a shot, after all it's the great Harold Lloyd who rivaled Chaplin as a great silent film comedian. I have watched much less of Lloyd's silent films then of Chaplins but I have to say I'm a much bigger Chaplin fan. Anyway this film fell so flat for me that I didn't finish it. I can understand why his sound career was so limited, he didn't get very good material to work with. After you've seen Chaplin, Abbott and Costello, The Three Stooges, Martin and Lewis, The Marx Brothers, and Laurel and Hardy do boxing spoofs (or violence in general), this one is very forgettable. I was also interested in watching Adolphe Menjou as I really enjoyed him in Paths Of Glory but his role here also did nothing special for me. Maybe they should have gotten into the boxing sooner because at least half the film (at least it seemed that way) is before he gets in a ring. I can tell there are a lot of Lloyd fans here and this wont be a popular review but I must rate this as compared to what else was out there at the time, 4 out of 10. Don't watch this with anyone your trying to get to like old movies as they may not watch another one with you again, very flat. For an alternative to anyone who really liked this or is looking for more little known comedies in general I recommend "Kelly The Second" made a few years earlier, another nobody becomes a boxer comedy with Patsy Kelly and in a supporting role Charles Chase. These have both been shown on the Turner Classic Movies channel.


About three minutes into this thing I started fast-forwarding, pausing only during the nudity (why is it that bad movies always include such good looking women?). In ten minutes I was done, and wishing I could get my money back from the rental store. The people who write these movies should be sanctioned by the MPAA. Come on writers - the bad guys ALWAYS get into the car with the bomb activated by the good guy's remote control! That's the way its been done since the days of the Ottoman Empire! Also, to add insult to injury, the "twist" at the end was so formulaic, that it could have come from any action movie written in the past 25 years. Burt Reynolds was fine, but he should concentrate on real movies.

This movie is just a waste of time - Run away! Run away!


A very tired looking Burt Reynolds plays a mercenary battling his former employers for some gizmo these non-heroes plan to sell to "the Iranians." Low-rent video nonsense by the producers of "Silk Stalkings" offers some decent action footage and a lot of ineptly staged "drama"...a lack of logic and truly dreadful dialogue are the defining aspects, although the final twists and allegiance shifts could've been a nifty end to a better movie. Burt still has presence, although it also means you notice more when he mouths insultingly half-baked "one-liners".


The movie was not a waste except for some boring scenes in between.But the women cast gave a pretty good show than the males who were laughable.

But Krista Allen really rocked in the movie .Her voice was so seducing and sexy.The scenes in the bed involving Krista should have shortened but she made it so watchable and sexier than any one could do.Krista really is one of the best in such roles.She also enacted quiet well as the baddie in the last 5 minutes,which is the interesting part of the movie.

Burt Reynolds was not that good and this was not his best as an action star.He could have chosen a better script than this.Ireally think he did for money.


I am definitely a Burt Reynolds fan, but sorry, this one really stinks. Most of the dialogue is laughable and the only interesting plot twist is in the last five minutes of the movie. I can't believe he even made this one. Is he actually that hard up for money?


It's "The F.B.I." starring Reed Hadley, with an all-star guest cast! The film begins with an accidental (convenient?) kidnapping, which leads to one thing, and another - which doesn't really indicate the main story, which is a "Big House, U.S.A." prison break story. The story is very improbable, to say the least. It's like a TV show, only more "violent" (for the times).

BUT - the cast is a trip! Picture this: Ralph Meeker is sent to prison; his cell-mates are the following criminals: Broderick Crawford, Lon Chaney Jr., Charles Bronson (reading a "Muscle" magazine!), and William Talman (reading a "Detective" magazine!). Honest! You should know that, an early scene reveals what happens to the "missing" boy, answering the ending "voiceover." If you don't want to have that hanging, don't miss the opening scenes between the "Iceman" and the boy (Peter Votrian doing well as a runaway asthmatic).

*** Big House, U.S.A. (1955) Howard W. Koch ~ Broderick Crawford, Ralph Meeker, Reed Hadley


I pity people calling kamal hassan 'ulaganaayakan' maybe for them ulagam is tollywood ! comeon guys..this movie is a thriller without thrill..

come out of your ulagam and just watch some high class thrillers like The Usual Suspects or even The Silence of the Lambs.

technically good but style over substance kamal doesn't look like a police officer, there is no thrill whatsoever dragging and boring till end you might be saving 3 valuable hrs of your life if u skip watching this movie.

kamal at his best is the best in tollywood


Filmatography: Excellent, nice camera angles (I don't remember seeing a movie of late, with good close-ups, until this one). Could have avoided gruesome scenes with a soft camera. NY is pictured good.I liked the upside down angles, in particular (a different touch).

Music: Not impressive. Songs don't stick around in your mind even after watching the movie. May be, I expected same quality like "Anniyan". A disappointment.

Actors: Kamal needs to slowly pull away from hard-core action sequences. His age and belly really show up. Also, he should avoid close romantic sequences going forward. It was a very awkward to see a mature/aged star still trying to play like a 20+ heroes scenes. Love can be expressed at any age; as we get older, you still can express love nicely from a distance (without touching a woman too much. For example, the love expressed by Rajinikanth in "chandrmukhi").

Jyotika just appears for the namesake in the movie. Not sure why she accepted this. Well, that is not my problem, I guess.

Others just have a small presence.

Direction: I expected Gautham to excel (or measure-up) to his other movie "Kakka Kakka". He disappointmented me. It took a long time to release the movie due to various issues. He slips in few scenes. Even abvious things got slipped from a famous director.

Overall: Just a okay movie. Too much graphics. DEFINITELY not for kids (and adults who expect some kind of "Entertainment").

Thx


On the way back from IMC6 (San Jose, California), all five (mind you, three of us hardcore Kamal fans) of us had reached a unanimous verdict; VV was solid crap and thanks to the movie we were going to have a pretty screwed up Monday. Not to mention, we swore to stay off the theatres for the next year.

I won't blame Kamal here because he sort of dropped a hint in a recent interview with cartoonist Madan (on Vijay TV). He said something like, "Tamizh Cinema'la Photography, Editing'la namba munnera'na maadri Screenplay, Direction, Acting'la innum namba munnera'la" (Tamil Cinema has grown in terms of Photography and Editing, but we have hardly improved, when it comes to Screenplay, Direction and Acting"). While you're watching VV, those words ring very true.

Now, here are the 10 Reasons to hate this movie:

1. Harris Jeyaraj

2. Harris Jeyaraj

3. Harris Jeyaraj I'm barely holding myself from using expletives here, but fact is HJ has mastered the fine knack of screwing up every recent movie of his (remember 'Anniyan', 'Ghajini') with the jarring cacophony, he bills as background music. The next time I have an eardrum transplant, he's paying for it.

4. Songs Neither do the songs help move the movie's narration spatially/temporally nor do they make you sit up and take notice. The film feels like it's made of four VERY long songs with a few scenes thrown in between them.

5. A Short gone too far. VV at best is fit to be a short story, not a 2 hour plus "thriller". To use a cliché here, like the Energizer bunny it goes on and on and on; only in this case you don't want it to. The later part of a movie feels like a big drag.

6. Kamal-Jothika pairing Two ice cubes rubbed together could've produced more sparks than this lead pairing. There's no reason you would root for them to make it together. In fact every time they get together in the second half of the movie, they make a good irritant to the narration. Hate to say this, but Kamalini Mukerjhee's 10 minute romancing does more than what Kamal and Jothika achieve in this movie plus 'Thenali'.

7. Kamal Haasan's accent Kamal has this pretentious accent that nobody speaks either in India or in the US; and it isn't new either. He's been doing it since 'Thoongadae Thambi Thoongadae'. It's simply gets on the nerve. Imagine what havoc it can cause when his flair for using this strange accent meets shooting on location in the US. He doesn't leave it at the Immigration either, he offers doses of advice to his men (bewildered TN Cops from Keeranor, Sathoor and beyond) in chaste Kamanglish ("Wha we hav here is plain bad police wok"), of course with nauseating effect.

8. Logic There are a few directors whom you expect to stand up to a certain scale. Gautam fails us badly with some crappy performance in the Department of common sense. Which D.C.P in his senses would meet his love interest on the streets to discuss such matters as committing himself and life after! The scene inside the theatre was so bad, towards the climax; we could hear people behind us loudly challenge the Hero's IQ. "Is he stupid, can't he just use his Siren or Lights?" (On a busy Madras road, Kamal-the-cop-on-a-police-Jeep chases a guy on a bike just like any ordinary dude!). "Can't he just use his gun?" ("The guy on a bike" starts on foot and we have a fully geared Kamal in hot pursuit for a considerable amount of time). I'm not voting in favour of the later, but I'm just trying to explain the mood inside.

9. Gore & Violence If I wanted to watch women being raped, their throats getting slashed, more women getting raped and thrown into the bushes with excruciating authenticity, I would sit at home and rather watch a "Police Report" or "Kuttram". The use of excessive violence should go in a way to extend the story, not overwhelm it! Somewhere down the line Gautum seems confused about what the extensions (rapes, murders) are and what the mainstay (story) is!

10. Even a double shot Espresso couldn't get the pain out of the head.


I had a lot of hopes for this movie and so watched it with a lot of expectations; basically because of Kamal Hassan. He is an amazing actor who has marked his foot steps in the sands of time forever. But this movie proved to be one of the worst movies i have ever seen. After watching this the movie the brutality and violence in tenebra and clockwork orange looks far better.

The Protagonist, Raghavan, is a very daring police officer. Who is assigned to a investigate brutal serial murders. Raghavan efficiently finds the connecting thread in this case and is close to solve the murders and put the psycho killers, two psychologically disturbed but brilliant medical students, behind bars but they escape and again get into a killing spree. Finally Raghavan kills them both after sparing many innocent lives.

THese two psycho-killers are the ones who are going to keep the audiences from going to the theaters. The murders and sexual harassments and rapes are shown very explicitly, which the movie could have survived without.

To even imagine that teenagers and kids are going to be watching this movie in the theater and kind of picture it is bound to paint in their minds are certainly not pretty. The director, Gautham, should realize that he also has some obligation to the society and his audience.Certainly i am never going to the movies looking like Gautham's name on the production list.


What can I say. A Kamal Hassan movie being horrible. He acts very well, but it is a horrible story, along with horrible direction. In my kind opinion, the director Gautham Menon must give up directing. There is a lot of tragedy throughout the movie. Apart from that, one can just not believe how true were those horrendous crimes. There was no practicality in the movie. Gautham is just running out of stories. But both Kamal Hassan and Jyothika act really well. The villains look too ugly, though their performance was not bad. I do not think this is a Sunday afternoon movie like Padayappa which you can see with the family. You will not get sleep seeing this movie!! However, Harris Jayaraj again did a great job, and that is why I have given this movie 4 out of 10. His song 'Partha Modail Nallae' is soulful and soothing. Apart from that, great cinematography. On the whole, this is just a bad, bad movie. Kamal Hassan, I think, should have rejected this movie.


This is quite possibly the most retarded 80's slasher ever realized, but how can you be harsh on a film that features non-stop images of dozens of gorgeous ladies with exhilarating bodies doing aerobic exercises, taking showers and wandering about in tight gym outfits? Prior to being a horror film, "Aerobicide" is a 90 minutes promo video to encourage the use of steroids, silicons and other body-stimulating fitness products. If you'd leave out all the footage of hunky boys lifting weights and yummy girls wiggling their butts and racks to insufferable 80's tunes, there probably only have about 15 minutes of story left. Plenty of time to improvise a plot about a sadist killer slaughtering young health-freaks with a big safety pin (yeah). The film opens with an unintentionally hilarious scene of a girl getting fried between an electric sun-bathing device. Several years later people turn up dead in the same spa. You don't really need to be an experienced horror fanatic or a rocket scientist to figure out there's a link between the murders and the burning incident, now do you? Investigating the case are a seemingly braindead police officer (and Charles Napier look-alike!) and a beefcake private detective who gets lucky with the bustiest 80's beauty I've ever seen! Looking through the credits, her name's Dianne Copeland apparently, and she didn't do anything else apart from this turkey and an imbecile Troma-movie called "Surf Nazis Must Die". What a wasted opportunity! She may not have been a great actress, but she sure had two other BIG advantages that would help her move upwards in show business. The amount of gore and the quality of the make-up effects are nothing special, neither. We're treated to a couple of bizarre stabbings with a pin and some barbecued human flesh. The plot twists near the end are ridiculous and predictable, but by that time nobody is taking the film seriously anymore, anyway. "Aerobicide" (a.k.a. "Killer Workout") is recommended in case you want to switch of all your brain functions off for one night, but nevertheless feel like watching a film! It actually would make a terrific double-feature with "Death Spa". Both films have a lot of sexy and scarcely dressed babes  and both films are pretty dumb.


Big hair, big boobs, bad music and a giant safety pin.......these are the words to best describe this terrible movie. I love cheesy horror movies and i've seen hundreds..but this had got to be on of the worst ever made. The plot is paper thin and ridiculous, the acting is an abomination, the script is completely laughable(the best is the end showdown with the cop and how he worked out who the killer is-it's just so damn terribly written), the clothes are sickening and funny in equal measures, the hair is big, lots of boobs bounce, men wear those cut tee-shirts that show off their stomachs(sickening that men actually wore them!!) and the music is just synthesiser trash that plays over and over again...in almost every scene there is trashy music, boobs and paramedics taking away bodies....and the gym still doesn't close for bereavement!! All joking aside this is a truly bad film whose only charm is to look back on the disaster that was the 80's and have a good old laugh at how bad everything was back then.


One two three four five six seven eight and back, haha. This is a must see, first of all to see the work out. There are a lot of work out shown, see those close ups, man you will enjoy it. A few years ago a video clip was surely based on this movie. It's a slasher but without suspense. The ending is funny too, and the clothes she's wearing in the wood confronting the copper, Jesus, looks like a clown. The killings are mostly done off screen, the blood flows but never too gory. There are a lot of fight scene's too, and hey, no one got hurt. And what about the weapon to kill, never seen a big one like that, won't spoil it, you must see it. And being a slasher there's a lot of T&A too. To guess who's the killer you will be trapped a few times and that's the best part, but what about the story of the copper in the woods, huh! But still due his cheesiness this one is still one that many would like to have. I'm glad that I have my copy, one of those slasher failures. But man, those clothes and not to mention the hairstyles! If you are in your 40's then this is one is back to memory lane.


You know Jason, you know Freddy, and you know Leatherface. Now, get ready for: The Safety Pin Killer! That's right, in Killer Workout, a dumb slasher movie if I've ever seen one, the unseen murderer dispatches his (or her?) victims with an oversized, novelty safety pin. It is an odd choice to be sure, the kind of thing that deserves an explanation. Naturally, the movie never even attempts to clarify where the killer acquired such a thing.

As the title suggests, an aerobics gym is under siege by a mad killer and everyone is a suspect. In fact, the movie gives so few clues as to the identity of the killer, just about everyone in the movie is a potential murderer until they get killed. And since just about everyone but the killer winds up dead, it's really just process of elimination.

Oddly, while the entire name cast is killed off, the aerobics classes continue in earnest. In fact, nothing is capable of stopping the dancing. While three men are murdered in the next room, the workout goes on. Death isn't even a factor; one character dies, but is still seen prominently in the later workout sessions. Director David Prior knew what he was doing when named the movie Killer Workout and not Logical Workout.

Cop chases, explosive tanning beds, and hundreds of shots of women's exposed flesh are thrown in for good measure. Much like the woman caught in the tanning bed, I felt very uncomfortable by the end of Killer Workout. Finally, thankfully, THE END flashed on the screen. What happened next? You got it, shots of the women working out. Not even the end of the movie can stop them!


Want to know the secret to making a slasher film set at a fitness center work? Just pad the film out with lovely ladies in super tight workout outfits and have them bump and grind the floor like they are at a gentleman's club. That's what the makers of this horrid slasher film did and that little gimmick kept me watching till the bitter end. This is the worst slasher film I have ever seen, but every time I was ready to switch the channel, they'd add another scene with the workout girls and I'd stay put. As a slasher film, Killer Workout fails in every category I can think of. As a showcase for beautiful girls working out, it is a success. Strong recommendation to avoid, unless the thought of half the film being a big T&A show appeals to you.


This movie is without a doubt the worst horror movie I've ever seen. And that's saying a lot, considering I've seen such stinkers like Demon of Paradise, Lovers' Lane, and Bloody Murder (which is a close second). However, I love bad horror movies, and as you can tell from my username, this one really sticks out. At times there's nothing more entertaining than a poorly made slasher flick. As for this film, the opening scene in which a woman gets fried in a tanning booth appears to have no bearing on the film whatsoever, especially since the movie fails to tell you that the event happened 2 years prior to the rest of the film. The acting is nonexistent, and most of the camera shot are of women's areas shrink wrapped in spandex. The policeman was the most stone-faced, monotone actor I've ever seen. The best/worst part of this movie, however, has to be the murder weapon. A giant safety pin?! What were they thinking? Who's the killer? A disgruntled "Huggies" employee? I'd have to give this movie an overall zero, but darned if I didn't have a blast watching it


Johnny Weissmuller's final film as 'King of the Jungle', after 16 years in the role, TARZAN AND THE MERMAIDS, is bound to disappoint all but the most ardent of his fans. At 44, the ex-Olympian, one of Hollywood's most active 'party animals', was long past the slim athleticism of his youth, and looked tired (although he was in marginally better condition than in his previous entry, TARZAN AND THE HUNTRESS).

Not only had Weissmuller gotten too old for his role; Johnny Sheffield, the quintessential 'Boy', had grown to manhood (he was a strapping 17-year old), so he was written out of the script, under the pretext of being 'away at school'. Brenda Joyce, at 35, was appearing in her fourth of five films as 'Jane' (she would provide the transition when Lex Barker became the new Tarzan, in 1949's TARZAN'S MAGIC FOUNTAIN) and was still as wholesomely sexy as ever.

Produced by Sol Lesser, at RKO, on a minuscule budget, the cast and crew took advantage of cheaper labor by filming in Mexico. While the location gave a decidedly Hispanic air to what was supposedly darkest Africa, veteran director Robert Florey utilized the country extensively, incorporating cliff diving and an Aztec temple into the story.

When a young island girl (Tyrone Power's future bride, Linda Christian) is rescued in a jungle river by Tarzan, he learns that a local high priest (George Zucco, one of filmdom's most enduring villains) had virtually enslaved the local population, threatening retribution from a living 'God' if they don't do his bidding. The girl had been chosen to become the 'God's' bride, so she fled. Faster than you can say 'Is this a dumb plot or WHAT?', the girl is kidnapped by the priest's henchmen and returned to the island, and Tarzan, followed by Jane, colorful Spanish character 'Benjy' (charmingly played by John Laurenz, who sings several tunes), and a government commissioner are off to take on the Deity and his priest (poor Cheeta is left behind). After a series of discoveries (the 'God' is simply a con man in an Aztec mask, working with the priest in milking the island's rich pearl beds), a bit of brawling action, and comic relief and songs by Benjy, everything reaches the expected happy conclusion.

Remarkably, TARZAN AND THE MERMAIDS features a musical score by the brilliant film composer, Dimitri Tiomkin, and is far better than what you'd expect from this 'B' movie!

While the film would provide a less-than-auspicious end to Weissmuller's time in Tarzan's loincloth (he would immediately go on to play Jungle Jim, a more eloquent variation of the Ape Man, in khakis), the talent involved lifted the overall product at least a little above the total mess it could have been.

Tarzan was about to get a make over, and become much sexier...


The finale of the Weissmuller Tarzan movies is a rather weak one. There are a few things that derail this film.

First, Tarzan spends much of the film wearing floppy sandals. In my opinion, any footwear on Tarzan, whether it be sandals or boots as sometimes portrayed, takes away from the character, which is supposed to be anti-civilization and pro-jungle.

Second, the character of Benji, as mentioned in a previous post, totally derails the movie as the comic foil. To me, his character is unnecessary to the film's plot.

Also, while Weissmuller still cuts a commanding figure as Tarzan, it's apparent that he was not in his best shape. Although in his later Jungle Jim movies, his physique had improved somewhat from this film.

The octopus battle is a terrific idea, but I think it should have been done in an earlier Weissmuller film when he was at his physical peak. Likewise, the battle, which takes only 30 seconds tops, would be much more thrilling if it was drawn out to 90 seconds to 2 minutes like the classic giant crocodile battle in Tarzan and His Mate.

And while Brenda Joyce as Jane and Linda Christian as Mara are overwhelmingly pleasing to the eye, it doesn't manage to salvage this last Weissmuller film - a disappointing ending to a great character run.


The last Tarzan film starring Johnny Weissmuller (looking surprisingly aged a year after "Tarzan and the Huntress") is bad, in spite of all the trivia one can add to make it look better. It is obvious that RKO tried to make a great farewell for Weissmuller, shooting in beautiful scenery in México, with a top star of that country (Andrea Palma) and multiple award-winning cinematographer Gabriel Figueroa, and bringing in prestigious composer Dimitri Tiomkin to do the score. Although it may have cost less for filming abroad, it looks more expensive than any other RKO film in the series, taking advantage of Acapulco beaches and real pyramids as Aquatania, and with impressive décors for all the scenes related to the temple of god Balu (especially the exterior, built on steep rocks.) Kurt Neumann should have stayed as director, instead of Robert Florey, who gives it a very slow pace. Neumann had done a fine work with "Tarzan and the Amazons", "Tarzan and the Leopard Woman" and "Tarzan and the Huntress", and finished his career directing the classic "The Fly" the year before his death; while Florey became a television director, after a career of few remarkable films. If Weissmuller looks tired, the chimp playing Cheeta is not as good as the others, but the worst character is Benji, an obnoxious mailman who sings horrendous songs (that have a Caribbean air, in a location supposed to be Africa and shot in México!) Boring and decidedly of dubious taste, it was a sad farewell to Weissmuller's Tarzan.


Last of the Johnny Weissmuller Tarzan films and a good thing too, as this is easily the worst of the 12 films he made over a period of 16 years. No mermaids are featured here either as a beautiful island woman tries to escape the clutches of her people, who worship a god and try to force her to be its bride. She finds Tarzan and Jane, who try to protect her. George Zucco is present as a potentially villainous High Priest but isn't used to his full advantage. Also on hand and worthy of mention is a hugely annoying guitar player/singer who goes into song every so often. Even the "great" Robert Florey can't aid this one.

*1/2 (of four)


I'd never seen a Tarzan movie before so when I saw it on the tele I thought I'd give it a shot. Unfortunately I have to say I was disappointed. Tarzan was over 40 years old and somewhat overweight. Not how I'd imagined Tarzan would look. And, unless I missed it while making myself a cup of tea, Tarzan never gave his traditional warbling yell. Also missing was Tarzan swinging through the trees - leaping from vine to vine.

Oh well, so much for expectations. Anyway, Jane was there - The monkey Cheeta was there. There was some guy with a guitar there. There were villains and good guys and a romance... all very harmless and predictable. Nothing bad, you understand, but equally nothing good.

Probably not the best movie to introduce Tarzan: 4/10


Well, here we have yet another role reversal movie. There were many worth watching, despite the tired plot of gender reversal. However, this one is not. In previous reviews, I think I've made my point about the general decline of enjoyment for Haim movies that followed the late 80s. This is one of them.

'Just One of the Girls' is about a high school kid (Corey Haim) who tries to avoid his bullies by dressing up as a girl and attending another school. He joins the cheerleading squad and makes friends with fellow cheerleader, Marie (Nicole Eggert). Obviously, he can't keep up the charade for too much longer.

I thought this movie was utter crap, and it wasn't even funny. But, judging by a majority of reviews, it looks like fans of Alanis Morrisette or teen sex queen, Nicole Eggert, are the only ones who'd want to watch this. If you're looking for a good Haim feature (or role switching comedy), look no further than 1989. This is about the point that Haim's career tanked.


Usually I'm a bit of a fan of the bad eighties & early nineties film featuring now has beens...but this film is so incredibly terrible that it was a real endurance test to sit through. Guys dressing up as girls has been done to death - but never so pathetically. Corey Haim's performance was abysmal as usual, Nicole Eggert was not much better. This has no redeeming qualities, even if you are a number #1 fan of an actor/actress in this piece of trash - stay away!


Geordies...salt of the earth characters...bricklayers...beer...Geordies...happy go lucky...adventures working abroad...salt of the earth characters...warm wonderful people...Tyne Bridge (tear in the eye)...brown ale...salt of the earth characters...cute little Red Indians children in Newcastle United tops...emetic...Geordies...salt of the earth characters...

etc etc etc....

Please. This is so poor. And you should know better Timothy Spall. They can't have paid you that much.

As for Jimmy Nail. Well the kindest thing that can be said is that he is every bit as good an 'actor' as he is a singer and writer. Come on Jimmy, the joke's over. 'Crocodile Shoes' and 'Spender' were very funny, unfortunately I don't think they were supposed to be. With 'Auf Wiedersehen Pet' the opposite applies.


Excruciatingly slow-paced, over-scripted black comedy with a too-clever premise and bad acting.

Maybe this would have worked as a Twilight Zone or Tales from the Crypt episode, but by the last half, you just want it to get to its predictable ending and be done with it already.


From it's uninspiring title to the flat acting performances, Curdled is very much an unremarkable film throughout. The film has gained some fans by way of the fact that Quentin Tarantino's name is attached to it, and the silly and out of place nod to the Rodriguez/Tarantino flick 'From Dusk till Dawn'. These things do not make a great movie, however, and this is more than evident all the way through 'Curdled'. The film suffers from an all too obvious lack of ideas, and it tries to mask this with murders that are meant to be stylish and events that are supposed to be disturbing. The Mexican music score that accompanies many of the sequences in the film is obviously meant to be cool, but it's becomes annoying very quickly; especially as aside from the fact that the lead character is Mexican, it doesn't fit with the tone of the movie. The film's plot is typically offbeat and it follows a gorehound who, because of her obsession with grisly murders, takes a job with a firm that cleans up murder scenes. It sounds boring and it is.

William Baldwin is the only 'name' on the cast list, and even he doesn't make an impression. He hasn't been given anything to do in the movie and aside from talking to his victims and standing around trying to look menacing, he's pretty much wasted. Angela Jones, or rather; the taxi driver from Pulp Fiction, takes the lead role as the murder obsessed young woman, and it is always clear that it's her involvement with Pulp Fiction that won her this role, not her acting ability. She may have been good enough in her small role in Tarantino's masterpiece, but she doesn't have the talent to lead a film by herself. She looks lost and out of place for the majority of the film, and if it weren't for her Latino accent; she wouldn't convince the audience that she's a weirdo on any level. Curdled is a one hundred percent-proof piece of forgettable trash. Films like this often win themselves praise for invention or black comedic antics; but this one fails on all levels. Whether you're a Tarantino fan, William Baldwin fan, horror fan or just a movie buff; this is one to miss.


Thoughtless, ignorant, ill-conceived, career-killing (where is the talented Angela Jones now?), deeply unfunny garbage. It's no wonder Reb Braddock hasn't directed anything else since - anyone who has a chance to make his first film on his own rules, based on his own script, with the help of Quentin Tarantino himself, and creates something like THIS, anyone who feels that THIS was a story worth telling to the world, doesn't deserve a second break. Under the circumstances, the performances are good - the actors do what they're told to do, and they do it well. It's just that they shouldn't have done it in the first place.

0 out of 4.


Proof that not everything Tarantino touches turns to gold. This is most definitely plastic, all the way. Its easy to see that without Quentin's involvement this would have probably sat on the shelf for years, that's assuming it would have ever got produced in the first place. It is about a woman with a fascination of death who gets a job cleaning up after crime scenes, Angela Jones is unconvincing in this role, William Baldwin is better as the Serial Killer who keeps Jones in employment!. All in all pretty poor.


I do regret that I have bought this series. I expected more action, more objective picture and more consistency. This is just a pure propaganda series, very dark, without any charm, or romanticism, it is just boredom itself. I find the actors work quite weak as well. O'Donnell might seem charming as Robin (with Batman), but in this picture he lacks any charm. Probably while he becomes older, he is loosing his childish charm but does not gain any charm of a grown up. It comes as no surprise, that it was not shown in a lot of countries and is being sold in the UK for 40% of the recommended price and was not even released in the Netherlands.


I was really looking forward to this show given the quality of the actors and the fact that The Scott brothers were involved. Unfortunately my hopes were dashed! Yet again we are led to believe that the KGB are a group of inept morons who don't have a clue what they are doing. At one point there is a laughable scene where 4 KGB agents couldn't handle one CIA agent. I grow weary of these biased, one sided and completely inaccurate portrayals of the Spy game that went on during the cold war. I find it laughable that the US is incapable of making objective movies about their involvement in WW2 and beyond. Just like the pathetic U-571, where we are led to believe that the US obtained the Enigma machine, again, utterly false.

To its credit, "The Company" is very well filmed and acted. The locales are also exceptionally well realised. Alfred Molina puts in a great performance as does Keaton (The conflict between them is very well done). I really wanted to like this show and no doubt I will end up watching the other 2 episodes but I really wish that US productions would stop trying to portray their Spies, servicemen etc as supermen who are vastly intellectually and physically superior to anyone else on the planet. It gets old fast and seriously detracts from the plausibility of what could have been a 10/10.

S


There is a remark that one of heroines was raped on "drunken rampage" by Russian soldiers, which is completely untrue. This movie should not be shown only because of this.

Also there is a statement by someone, that KGB prosecuted "Jews, Gypsies etc", which is "worse than Nazis". KGB was looking for so called "zionist" agents, who were (KGB believed) imperialist agents. This is totally different from targeting Jewry as a whole nation, as Nazis did. Gypsies were never prosecuted. KGB was political tool and used politically, but from internationalist standpoint. Communists really did not distinguish between nationalities.

Whole movie stinks like fake. Main hero does not speak Russian, signs in Berlin contains typographical errors, KGB general looks totally phony. Some so called "russian proverbs" are totally made up, and list goes on and on.

Not recommended to watch - this movie is full of lies, and phony stuff. Go to "Good shepherd" instead.


Writer/Director Bart Sibrel bases his work here around a can of film that he says was mistakenly sent to him by NASA. He says it shows the astronauts faking the television footage of their trip to the moon by employing camera tricks. The astronauts were in low Earth orbit all the time, and editors on the ground composed this raw footage into just a few seconds of finished film.

Unfortunately Sibrel's research is so slipshod that he doesn't realize his "backstage" footage is really taken in large part from the 30-minute live telecast (also on that reel) that was seen by millions, not hidden away in NASA vaults as he implies. And we have to wonder why Sibrel puts his own conspiratorial narration over the astronauts' audio in the footage, because hearing the astronauts in their own words clearly spells out that the astronauts were just testing the camera, not faking footage.

Finally, anyone can see the raw footage for themselves without having to buy Sibrel's hacked-up version of it. (He shows you more of the Zapruder film of JFK's assassination than of his "smoking gun".) Sibrel thinks he's the only one who's seen it. What's more revealing is the clips from that raw footage that Sibrel chose NOT to use, such as those clearly showing the appropriately distant Earth being eclipsed by the window frames and so forth, destroying his claim that mattes and transparencies were placed in the spacecraft windows to create the illusion of a faraway Earth.

As with most films of this type, Sibrel relies on innuendo, inexpert assumption, misleading commentary, and selective quotation to manipulate the viewer into accepting a conclusion for which there is not a shred of actual evidence.


I watched this video at a friend's house. I'm glad I did not waste money buying this one. The video cover has a scene from the 1975 movie Capricorn One. The movie starts out with several clips of rocket blow-ups, most not related to manned flight. Sibrel's smoking gun is a short video clip of the astronauts preparing a video broadcast. He edits in his own voice-over instead of letting us listen to what the crew had to say. The video curiously ends with a showing of the Zapruder film. His claims about radiation, shielding, star photography, and others lead me to believe is he extremely ignorant or has some sort of ax to grind against NASA, the astronauts, or American in general. His science is bad, and so is this video.


There are so many incorrect statements in this so-called "documentary" that I found myself shouting at the television.

Bart Sibrel might be able to produce a flashy looking DVD, but he is sadly lacking at looking at the science behind his claims.

He relies on either being inaccurate, not telling the full story, or the old favourite "government always lies to us" innuendos, and people believing what is told to them and not checking on the accuracy or details behind the claims.

What's more, his "exclusive" or "unreleased" footage is freely available over the internet from various sites.

Further reading about the circumstances regarding the filming of this production shows that he used false pretenses to gain interviews, and has used creative editing of the responses in order to promote his own opinions.

All of the claims made by Mr Sibrel about "inaccuracies", "mistakes", or "whistleblowing" in the Apollo programme have been thoroughly disproven.

How do I get that 40-odd minutes of my life back?


The views of Earth that are claimed in this film to have been faked by NASA have recently been compared with the historical weather data for the time of Apollo 11, and show a good match between the cloud patterns in the video sequence and the actual rainfall records on the day.

This would seem to undermine the entire argument put forward in the film that the "whole Earth" picture is actually a small part of the planet framed by the spacecraft window.

I am waiting for Bart Sibrel to now claim that the historical weather data has been faked by NASA, though that would no doubt involve them in also replacing every archived newspaper copy with a weather map, and the ones in private hands would still be a problem.

Ah, a response: "Trying to discredit this movie by referring to NASA weather data I'd say is a charming, but weak and gullible argument. What about the rest of the footage and proofs in the movie? A certain wise man once said something about sifting mosquitoes and swallowing camels. Do you in any way feel that maybe this could apply to what you are trying to do here? :-) This movie is just packed with irrefutable evidence against the claim once made by U.S. government that the moon-missions were a success, and that man now are true masters of the universe. Things are nearly never quite what they seem.. Just watch the movie, and I dear say you'll see things a bit different than before."

First off, weather data doesn't come from NASA, it comes for met agencies around the world. Second, the weather data undermines a major claim in the film. Third, far from being "packed with irrefutable evidence", the remaining claims in the film have been thoroughly debunked. Sibrel thought he had a previously secret piece of film, so he edited it and added his own interpretation. Unfortunately for him, his source film is public domain, and the bits Sibrel edited out contradict his claims.


When I was 16 I saw the documentary: "A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon". I actually liked, and believed in it for a couple of years. But then I grew up, and began to think, and when I had sought more information. This is: more info from reel sources, and non-biased sources. When I started at university, not so long ago, i asked an assistant-professor in astronomy about these conspiracy theories. What he said shocked me: He said that all those theories where lies. That baffled me, I did not believe it first, but then he presented evidence for his claims. He quickly debunked most of the theories about the subject: "humans did not go to the moon". The most outrages claim was that the Apollo-craft could not travel through the Van-Allen-radiation-Belt, without the crew perishing from radiation. The truth is that the Americans use a secret aluminum-anti-radiation-alloy. It is not that well-known. And the exact specifications are a secret. And why is it a secret: Well, why should they reveal it back then?? If they where in a space race with the Russians, then it would be VERY dumb to reveal that they had new technology that could shield crew against radiation.

And then there is the biggest evidence of all: The Moon Stones. When the Apollo-missions DID go to the moon, they brought back many rocks from the moon, to give to geologists and similar scientists, who are documenting all things about the moon. These rocks and stones are IN FACT FROM THE MOON. Because: the internal basic elements, which all matter consist of, are also made of special isotopes, that are different from quarry to quarry, land to land, and especially planet from planet. The isotopes of these rocks and stones have been Proved, that they do not come from earth. The astronauts brought home HUNDREDS of Kilogram's of these rocks, all of them have been proved to have come from outside earth, and from the same planet. Ergo: The moon-landings where not fake. NASA did go to another planet: the moon, though it is not a planet, but a satellite to a planet, a moon (duuh). These rocks have been distributed to laboratories and universities all around the world. It has been proved: Humans did go to the moon - it is a fact, pronto.

But I do not worry: most conspiracy-theorists are generally unemployed and uneducated, that is mostly why they do not know or lie about these facts. The fact remains: Humans did walk on the moon.


The only reason I didn't score this a one is that Sibrel does show that he is adept at the technical aspects of making a film. It is a technically adept film.

That having been said, this is a film based on lies and distortions that are quite easily disproven. Most of the documentary is spent using propaganda techniques to bash the space program, rather than actual fact. And Sibrel's "irrefutable proof" that the landings were faked is easily refuted if you know anything about orbital mechanics.

I do not recommend watching this, but if you do, see it at google video for free. Don't let Bart Sibrel profit from your curiosity.


This so-called "documentary" tries to tell that USA faked the moon-landing. Year right.

All those who have actually studied the case knows different.

First of all: there is definitely proof. When the astronauts was on the moon, they brought back MANY pounds of rock from the moon - for geological studies. These where spread around the world to hundreds of labs, who tested them. And they all concluded that they came from the same planet, not earth: because the inner isotopes of the basic elements are different from those found on earth, but similar to those calculated to be on the moon. I.E. the conspiracy theorists never studies anything: they only take the thing that fit into their theory and ignores the rest.

Another wrongful claim from them is that their was wind in the hangar where they shot the moon landing, I.E. the flag moves. There is a logical explanation: the astronaut moved it with his hand, so it moved. And what proves this: well, if the conspiracy theorists even studied the footage, they would see that the flag NEVER moves after the astronaut have let it be, I.E. the conspiracy theorists are bad-scientists, they cant study a subject properly, or only studies it until they have what they came for, so that they can make a lie from that, and make a profit (I.E. this so-called "documentary").

A claim says that it cant possible have been filmed on the moon because all the shadows come from different places, because there are different light-sources, the artificial lighting from the studio. Once again the conspiracy theorists are wrong (as usual), the same would happen in an earth desert at night, with no light-sources. But i doubt that any Conspiracy theorists have ever been outside their grandmothers basement for more than how many days a Star Treck-convention is held over.

The Conspiracy theorists are in denial, BIG TIME. They only see what they want to see. So they make up all these lies to seem important - that is a fact.


I notice that most of the people who think this film speaks the truth were either not born before the moon landings (1969-1972), or not old enough to appreciate them. I think it is much easier to question an historic event if you did not live through it.

I was a youngster at the time of Apollo, but I was old enough to understand what was going on. The entire world followed the moon landings. Our families gathered around the TV to watch the launch. Newspaper headlines screamed the latest goings-on each day, from launch to landing, from moonwalks to moon liftoff, all the way to splashdown, in a multitude of languages. In school, some classes were cancelled so we could watch the main events on TV. During Apollo 13 the world prayed and held its collective breath as the men limped home to an uncertain fate. You couldn't go anywhere without someone asking what the latest was. The world was truly one community.

Now with a buffer of 30-odd years after the fact, it is easy to claim fraud because worldwide enthusiasm and interest has died down. We are left with our history books, and anybody can claim that history is wrong and attempt to "prove" it with a bunch of lies and made-up facts while completely ignoring the preponderance of evidence showing otherwise--not to mention the proof that dwells in the souls and memories of those who lived through these wonderfully heady and fantastic days.


this documentary is founded on sponge cake as soon as you put any REAL evidence on it the integrity slowly sinks into a big pile of crap for example Bart Sibrel claims they must have had multiple lighting sources because the shadows appear to be crossing if this were the case wouldn't there be two or more shadows for each object when Apollo 11 went through the van Allan radiation belts they spent 30 Min's there not the 90 Min's claimed in the documentary and they received a dose of radiation more equivalent to that of an an x ray.

seriously do some research learn what really happened don't let this pile of crap of a documentary mold your opinion of what really happened


I am a 11th grader at my high school. In my Current World Affairs class a kid in my class had this video and suggested we watch. So we did. I am firm believer that we went to the moon, being that my father works for NASA. Even though I think this movie is the biggest piece of crap I have ever watched, the guy who created it has some serious balls. First of all did he have to show JFK getting shot? And how dare he use all those biblical quotes. The only good thing about this movie is it sparks debates, which is good b/c in my class we have weekly debates. This movie did nothing to change my mind. I think he and Michael Moore should be working together and make another movie. Michael Moore next movie could be called "A Funny Thing Happened on Spetember 11th" or "A Funny thing happened on the way to the white house".


In an otherwise good review, loleralacartelort7890 says "The truth is that the Americans use a secret aluminum-anti-radiation-alloy. It is not that well-known. And the exact specifications are a secret. And why is it a secret: Well, why should they reveal it back then?? If they where in a space race with the Russians, then it would be VERY dumb to reveal that they had new technology that could shield crew against radiation." This is completely incorrect. There is (and was) no "secret" to radiation protection in Apollo. The design and construction of the Apollo Command Module has long been publicly available. It uses a lightweight "honeycomb" of aluminum and stainless steel. The entire outer surface (except the windows of course) is covered with a heat shield made of a phenolic resin, thicker on the bottom that faces forward during re-entry. These materials are actually *better* at stopping the kind of radiation we have in space (charged particles) than lead, which is better suited to stopping ionizing photons like X-rays and gamma rays.

Space radiation is a definite problem for *long term* space flight because of the risk of big solar flares. But it simply wasn't a serious threat to the Apollo astronauts. The Command Module gave them pretty good protection during their brief (1/2 hour or so) passage through the Van Allen belts. They all carried dosimeters so we know exactly how much radiation they each received: no more than 1.5 rem, and usually much less. Of the 24 men who flew to the Moon (12 of whom landed), 18 are still alive. Only two have died from cancer: Alan Shepard (leukemia) and Jack Swigert (bone cancer). The rest died from heart attacks, pancreatitis (Roosa), and a motorcycle accident (Conrad). These are actually pretty good statistics for a group of men now in their late 70s (Shepard would be 86).


Lame, lame, lame!!! A 90-minute cringe-fest that's 89 minutes too long. A setting ripe with atmosphere and possibility (an abandoned convent) is squandered by a stinker of a script filled with clunky, witless dialogue that's straining oh-so-hard to be hip. Mostly it's just embarrassing, and the attempts at gonzo horror fall flat (a sample of this movie's dialogue: after demonstrating her artillery, fast dolly shot to a closeup of Barbeau's vigilante charactershe: `any questions?' hyuck hyuck hyuck). Bad acting, idiotic, homophobic jokes and judging from the creature effects, it looks like the director's watched `The Evil Dead' way too many times.

I owe my friends big time for renting this turkey and subjecting them to ninety wasted minutes they'll never get back. What a turd.


This film is so much of a rip-off of the masterpeice "demons" and thats the only thing that makes the movie worth watching. The acting is terrible,the action scenes are speeded up,the script is almost painful and budget non existent.

If you think this film is good then you havn't seen a real horror film, skip this and get a copy of the movie demons.


This movie is BAD! It's basically an overdone copy of Michael Jackson's Thriller video, only worse! The special effects consist of lots of glow in the dark paint, freaky slapstick fastmoving camera shots and lots of growling. I think the dog was the best actor in the whole movie.


What the hell of a D-Movie was that? Bad acting, bad special effects and the worst dialogues/storyline i ever came across. The only cool thing here was Coolio, who had a nice cameo as a freaked out cop. However, the rest of the film is awful and boring. It's not even so bad, you can laugh about it. Just plain crap. And whoever compares this to the Evil Dead Series might as well compare Tomb Raider to Indiana Jones (well, ok, at least there was Angelina Jolie in Tomb Raider)! 1 out of 10


Saw this 'film' recently and have to say it was the worst attempt at film making I have ever had the misfortune to see. What the Hell was going on with Coolio? Totally unprovoked shooting at people in distress. Totally uninvolving, slow, tedious and detached. Worse than Spawn. long live "Evil dead II".


I just finished a marathon of this series, and it became agonising to watch as it progressed. From the fictionalising of the historical elements, to O'Herlihy's awful accent in later episodes, the show just slumps the further it goes. If you are looking for some low quality production generalised WW2 fluff, then I could recommend season 1, but avoid anything after that, it degenerates into being one step from a soap opera, with increasingly worse story lines and sensibility.

The old B&W film is by far the best of any form of entertainment with the Colditz name attached to it, and even that is not what one could hope for.


Many people thought that this is a good movie but I don't agree with them. At the beginning of the movie, a spaceship crushed on earth and some of the aliens escaped from the spaceship, then hey killed some people on the earth, but for no reason. Also, it is in a dark forest, I can't see anything on the screen, I can only hardly hear the sound.

After a few days, the predator came to the earth but no one had sent signals to him before that, he should not know what happened on the earth, so there is a contradiction. Finally, the predator found the headmaster of the aliens and killed it for no reason. He was not live on earth, t is none of his business about the things happened here. Lastly, the duration of the movie is only 90 minutes long, the summary is too short and it can't tell the reviewers about the story clearly.

In conclusion, I don't think this is a good movie.


Here's an indie film I really wanted to like, but ultimately could not. The lack of script (boldly proclaimed in the main titles) really shows through and kills the picture. The story is a nonsensical mess that isn't worth trying to figure out. I quickly became bored within 10 minutes, then suffered through the remainder of the first 40 minutes--hoping for the best--before hitting the chapter stops to (mercifully) get to the end... even that wasn't worth the extra effort. OZARK SAVAGE clearly tries too hard to be clever, lifting its best sequences from EVIL DEAD 2 and THE MATRIX. As a result, there's very little in OZARK SAVAGE that hasn't been done before, and better. This film would have been much more fun as a 10-20 minute short, but as a feature, it just feels padded and forced. Of course, there's no money in shorts, so I completely understand the financial reasons that I assume motivated it being stretched out to 75+ minutes. Director Matt Steinauer shows great promise, and I wish him luck.


I had read many good things about this adaptation of my favorite novel...so invariably my expectations were crushed. But they were crushed more than should be expected. The movie would have been a decent movie if I had not read the novel beforehand, which perhaps ruined it for me.

In any event, for some reason they changed the labor camp at Toulon to a ship full of galley slaves. The scene at Bishop Myriel's was fine. In fact, other than the galleys, things survived up until the dismissal of Fantine. Because we do not want to have bad things happen to a good woman, she does not cut her hair, sell her teeth, or become a prostitute. The worst she does is run into the mayor's office and spit on his face. Bamatabois is entirely eliminated. Because having children out of wedlock should also not be talked about, Tholomyes is Fantine's dead husband, rather than an irresponsible dandy. Valjean is able to fetch Cosette for Fantine before the Champmathieu affair, so they reunite happily, yet another change. Then comes the convent, which is a pretty difficult scene to screw up. Thankfully, it was saved. After this three minutes of accuracy, however, the movie again begins to hurtle towards Classic Novel Butchering.

As Cosette and Valjean are riding through the park, they come across Marius giving a speech at a meeting. About prison reform. When he comes to hand out fliers to Valjean and Cosette, he says the one line in the movie that set me screaming at the TV set. "We aren't revolutionaries." I could hear Victor Hugo thrashing in his grave. OF COURSE THEY ARE REVOLUTIONARIES! They want to revolt against the pseudo-monarchy that is in place in favor of another republic, you dumb screenwriters! It's a historical FACT that there was an insurrection against the government in 1832.

At one point Cosette goes to give Marius a donation from her father for the reform movement and meets Eponine. Except...not Eponine. Or at least not the Eponine of the book. This Eponine appears to be a well-to-do secretary girl working for the prison reformers (who are working out of the Cafe Universal as opposed to the Cafe Musain). Not to mention the audience is already made to dislike her thanks to her not-period, low-cut, tight-fitting dress and her snooty mannerisms.

The prison reformers (Lead by the most poorly cast Enjolras that I have EVER seen) decide that handing out pamphlets isn't good enough anymore. So they're going to build barricades. I don't know about you, but I have never heard of reform movements tearing up the streets and building barricades and attacking government troops. About three hundred people (it was not supposed to be so many) start attacking the National Guard and building a bunch of barricades, etc. Eponine does die for Marius, thankfully.

The rest of the movie is sort of accurate, except that Javert's suicide again seems hard to understand thanks to his minuscule screen time and odd character interpretation. The movie ends with Valjean watching Javert jump into the river. This is again inaccurate because Valjean would never have let Javert drown. He saved the man's life earlier, why let him die now? Then there's the whole skipping of Valjean's confession to Marius, his deterioration, and his redemption on his deathbed with Marius and Cosette by his side.

Overall, I can blame the script mostly for the problems. While I am glad Enjolras and Eponine were at least present in the film, they were terribly misinterpreted, as was the entire barricade scene. The elimination of Fantine's suffering prevents us from feeling too much pity for her. That Cosette knows Valjean's past from the start messes with the plot a good deal. I did not even see Thenardier, and Mme. Thenardier only had a few seconds of screen time. The same with Gavroche. I did like Frederich March's interpretation of Valjean a lot, however, which was one of the redeeming features of the movie. On the other hand, Charles Laughton, for all his great acting in other movies, seems to have missed the mark with Javert. The lip tremble, the unnecessary shouting, and his acting in general all just felt very wrong. He also, like many Javerts I have seen, did not appear at all menacing, something required of the character.

Again, this film would probably feel much better if I had not read the book. I would not recommend it to book purists, though. I would also say that the movie would have been a good adaptation for the time had not the infamously accurate French version come out the year before.


Bill (Buddy Rogers) is sent to New York by his uncle (Richard Tucker) to experience life before he inherits $25million. His uncle has paid 3 women Jacqui (Kathryn Crawford), Maxine (Josephine Dunn) and Pauline (Carole Lombard) to chaperone him and ensure that he does not fall foul of gold-diggers. One such lady Cleo (Geneva Mitchell) turns up on the scene to the disapprovement of the women. We follow the tale as the girls are offered more money to appear in a show instead of their escorting role that they have agreed to carry out for the 3 months that Bill is in New York, while Bill meets with Cleo and another woman. At the end, love is in the air for Bill and one other .............

The picture quality and sound quality are poor in this film. The story is interspersed with musical numbers but the songs are bad and Kathryn Crawford has a terrible voice. Rogers isn't that good either. He's pleasant enough but only really comes to life when playing the drums or trombone. There is a very irritating character who plays a cab driver (Roscoe Karns) and the film is just dull.


A friend of mine lent this video to me and I was fairly excited to watch it, but after ten minutes of James Hetfield's slow pitched vocals and Lars banging on his drum set in what appeared to be slow motion I began to think, `Why am I watching this?' That question will be coursing through your minds in 5  10 minutes after you hit Play. I gave the tape back the same day, as you would suspect, not worth buying or watching!

Just my opinion!


With a story and screenplay that seems to have been written by a high schooler, 'The Art of Seduction' fails to deliver the romantic, sophisticated experience it tries to bill itself as. The two main characters have the potential to be interesting - both male and female lead are "swinging singles (or in the female lead's case, engaged)", but 'The Art of Seduction' doesn't even try. Shirking from a frank examination of these two characters' personalities, 'The Art of Seduction' eschews anything of substance for a basis of thin, lean stereotype.

'The Art of Seduction' is insulting - insulting to its characters, insulting to men and women, and insulting to its audiences' expectations. It takes the awful beautiful people we all know and plays out their painful interactions while expecting us to idolize them. Ji-wan is an immature, spoiled, manipulative bitch. The viewer is expected to like and forgive her flaws because she's pretty. Min-jun, well, he's exactly the same. Neither are nice people. The "humour" in this film primarily revolve around Ji-wan and Min-jun's outlandish attempts at outdoing each other in the honourable art of lying and manipulation. No character development occurs, and we never learn why Ji-wan and Min-jun are like this. We are simply expected to take them as they are, and not ask questions - they're cute!, and that's all that matters. The copious references to the celebrity of the main actors in azn cinema scenester's reviews may tip you off to 'Art of Seduction's shallowness.

If you're still in high school, you liked Grease, or you are a yellow fever victim, you may like this movie.

Despite its "Romance" tag, this is not a very good date movie.


This is a film that makes you say 2 things... 1) I can do much better than this( acting,writing and directing) 2) this is so bad I must leave a review and warn others...

Looks as if it was shot with my flip video. I have too believe my friend who told me to watch this has a vendetta against me. I have noticed that there are some positive posts for this home video; Must have been left by crew members or people with something to do with this film. One of the worst 3 movies I have ever seen. hopefully the writers and director leave the business. not even talented enough to do commercials!!!!!


Let's see where to begin... bad acting; I'm not sure if I'd even call it that, as it more along the lines of a no-effort script read. The actors didn't even seem to be into their parts and seemed quite lifeless and listless. Sure there was a scene or two with nudity, but that couldn't save this movie from it's lifeless characters.

To call the main character a rapper is an insult to the people who actually do. The lyrics had no rhythm or flow and seemed more along the lines of senseless rants.

Budget? Did this movie even have a budget? It seemed like they used less money than I've seen in a home-shot YouTube video. Bad lighting, props, poor sound post production. Bad special effects, if you want to go so far as to call them that. Story could have been good if the people actually seemed interested in making it so, but there was no life to this flick; I don't care who directed it.

I've seen some really bad flicks in the past year and this one is definitely at the very bottom. Don't waste your time or you'll be wishing you listened to this unbiased review. Check the ratings, you'll see the 1's are rapidly outpacing the fluffed 10's with hardly anything in between. Wish I would have looked a little closer before wasting my time. What a suck-fest!


I love the munna bhai MBBS but "Lagge raho..." SUX really SUX. I have never seen such a boring movie in my whole life. And these high ratings really astonished me that wat happened to the taste of Indian cinema viewers ??

**MAY BE SPOILER**

An educated girl needs an advice from a Bhai, people discussing their personal prob. on phones come on man from which part of the world u r ??? I agree that films should be fictitious but these things are really indigestible.

2 out of 10. (2 stars is for 15 mins good starting)


The reason I intended to give this movie a chance to take 2 hours of my life (actually it was only 35 minutes) was my wish to try to understand and hopefully appreciate Indian cinema. All I have ever seen were few older movies of S.Ray.

Browsing through IMDb I came across this one and after seeing rating of 8.7 I concluded this must be the one which will open the doors of unknown and bring artistic enjoyment. Oh my how wrong I was! The only logical explanation for this rating of 8.7 is that most of 970 people who voted are Indian and their only venture outside Bolliwood production were Adam Sandler movies.

With this rating this movie would be ranked on 9th place on IMDb List of 250 best movies above Citizen Cane, Goodfellas of Psycho! I am really not in a mood to review and criticize because there is simply nothing that I find worth remembering from this painful experience. My only hope is that there is a lot of Hindu who like me find this movie as is -- plain stupid, with abundance of kitsch and cheesy music.