I am partly a fan of Miyazaki's work. I say "partly" because most of his films fall into two categories: brilliant, and boring. Sadly this film falls into the later category.

This film suffers from the same fundamental problems as Miyazaki's recent film "Howl's Moving Castle". An intriguing premise is set up, but then immediately reduced to little more than a backdrop for some unfathomable events that only serve to confuse the plot rather than explain it.

The first third of the film reveals the post-apocalyptic world the story is set in, and actually looks like an very interesting story is about to unfold. From then on things go down hill. The middle part of the film is mostly made up of thinly-veiled eco-propaganda, and the ending is heavily marred by the reliance on the kind of impenetrable spiritualism which ruins a large number of Japanese animated films.

Overall the film feels as though someone ripped out every other page from the script before passing it on the the animators. What is left is something which is visually stunning (although sadly the version I saw was an Nth-generation copy, with poor colour - which gives rise to the common myth that Nausicaa shows her bare bottom when flying), but which makes little sense and ultimately left me confused.


I don't know what it is about Donald Sutherland's acting style, or vocal style, but he always seems to be acting from behind a massive wad of soggy Kleenex. He's just...I don't know, THICK? Somnambulistic? On meds? Weird.

That said, I just saw the flick again for the first time since its original release, and frankly, I don't remember it ending anything LIKE that. A bad ending, too, because nothing gets tied off. What about the dead husband? The annoying child (and was the kid dubbed?)? The Scotland Yard and military pursuers? I would have liked something wrapping things up and giving some dramatic closure to it all, not just the big panoramic pull-away.

And what woman sleeps with the man she knows just killed her husband? Even if she was trying to allay Needle's suspicions to protect her kid, she could always have had a headache. That last encounter made me feel way too itchy and uncomfortable...


To make a good movie you either need excellent actors or an excellent director. You need at least one of the two. In this Eye of the Needle we have none.

I don't even remember the name of the director. He mustn't have done much in his career. I like very much Donald Sutherland but he absolutely cannot be the main actor in a movie. He falls short. Sutherland is excellent in a movie when he appears for not more than 15 minutes. I would say for instance that Sutherland was excellent in JFK of Oliver Stone when he talked to Kevin Costner on the bench of a park for 10 minutes non-stop without even taking a breath. Wonderful. But Sutherland being the principal actor in a movie is no good.

Kate Nelligan? She is probably good for TV series. The DVD is awful. Terrible colors. Terrible light. I couldn't even appreciate the scenery of Storm Island for how lousy the photography was.

This Ken Follett story was good but it's a pity they turned it into an uninteresting movie.


The movie lacks credence with the helicopters which didn't exist until the 1950s. But no woman would do what was done here, even a woman before the women's movement of the 60s and 70s. About the only portion of the movie that you could believe in was that Germany would want to know where the landing would be. Ignore for the moment that the British had captured all the spies but even if they had not, they wouldn't have let one roam around like this just to reassure the Germans that the landing would be at Calais. It isn't one major thing that makes the movie not work. It is the culmination of all the things wrong that makes the movie fail. Bad directing, bad scripts, no attempt at authenticity (at all) all combine to just make the movie fall flat. Generally speaking spies should fade into the woodwork. The suspense comes in with the spy wondering if the information they have is valid or not and worrying about being detected. On this one that game was over from the start. This spy was doing anything but spying. Your only chance at getting something that has some credibility and instills some suspense may be to read the book.


When I had first heard of "Solar Crisis" then got a load of the cast, I wondered why I had never heard of a movie with such a big cast before. Then I saw it.

Now I know.

For a movie that encompasses outer space, the sun, vast deserts and sprawling metropolises, this is an awfully cramped and claustrophobic feature; it feels like everyone is hunkered close together so the camera won't have to pull too far back.

And the effects, while good, are pretty underwhelming; we're talking about the imminent destruction of the planet Earth if a team of scientists and soldiers cannot deflect a deadly solar flare. But other than shouting, sweating and a red glow about everything, there's no real feel of emergency.

Don't get me started about the cast. What Heston, Palance, Matheson, Boyle, et al are doing in this movie without even bothering to act with any feel for the material is anyone's guess. Makes you wonder who else's condos aren't paid for in Hollywood....

And as far as the end goes.... Well, let's just say it's tense and intriguing but it's too little too late in an effort like this. If it had kept up that kind of pace all through the film, maybe I would have heard of "Solar Crisis" sooner.

Two stars. Mostly for lost opportunities and bad career moves.

I wonder how Alan Smithee keeps his job doing junk like this?


Oh the hilarity! Oh the joy! Another film that is so bad it's good! Or, so I thought. In actual fact, this one misses the "so bad its good" phase and goes, sadly, straight to the "could have been so bad its good, but they screwed it up and made it plain bad".

For a start its way too long. Cut half an hour and it might have been more endurable. Then put in such ludicrous plots as "the man who is sabotaging the mission to save the Earth, because he has all the food stockpiled and he'll be rich if the mission fails!". Duh!. Or the "talking bomb" plot device last seen in Dark Star. Guess what....just like in Dark Star, the bomb has a malfunction.....hmmmm. Add in a dash of "we can't act our way out of a kindergarten play" and you have Solar Crisis in a nutshell.

Light relief is to be had in the form of Jack Palance (or Jack Pants, as we called him in this flick), whose sole purpose in the film is to drive a kid around the desert and telephone the kid's dad to come pick him up....eventually. Between driving and phoning, Jack dispenses pointless drivel and leers and cackles a lot, but contributes little to the story, such as it is. In short, he's the best bit of the movie.

My award for "The Most Ironic Line Delivered Straight-Faced" goes to Charlton Heston, who, when meeting his eldest son for the first time in ages, comments that his son looks a little "out of shape" whilst he himself is standing there with his gut bulging over his waistband and in dire need of a Captain Kirk Corset.

Also amusing is the bad guy's top henchman, who has a bright white hairstyle that kept making me think of Andy Warhol, for some reason.

Apart from these hilarities, there's little to recommend this movie. The ending is a sequence copied from (but mercifully shorter than) the end sequence from 2001.

Tips for enjoying this movie more, if you are foolish enough to watch it, like I did:

1. Any time the bomb speaks, imagine it's called Tarquin (Trust me, it works!)

2. Whenever Chuck Heston is on screen and about to speak, pre-empt him by reciting a line from Planet of the Apes such as "Get your filthy paws off me!" or similar.

3. Whenever the female lead is looking stressed (this is most of the time) keep hoping against hope that she's having an aneurism and will die soon.

4. During the interminable "the ship's broke again" scenes, keep hoping the tech/engineer guys will spout a Scotty-ism like "You cannae change the laws of physics!" or some such crap.

Other than that, do what it takes to get you through this one. I dozed off half way through and woke to realise I hadn't missed anything, nor had the plot (laughable though it is) advanced any. So don't worry about tuning out for a few, you won't miss anything.


I picked this title up from a friend who had it sitting in his exhaustive DVD/Video/Laserdisc collection, so luckily I didn't personally have to pay for it. I had an inkling that it would be a bad film, but I KNOW what a truly bad film is after watching greats like Children Shouldn't Play With Dead Things and The Incredibly Strange Creatures Who Stopped Living and Became Mixed-Up Zombies, and now there is truly nothing that fazes me unless it is astoundingly bad.

Solar Crisis is bad, but it doesn't reach that sweet spot of absolute pain that some movies are at.

Anyway, the general plot is that the sun is about to unleash a huge solar flare towards the earth that will essentially destroy it. In order to counter-act this imminent threat, humanity has assembled a spaceship and crew whose duty it is to fire an antimatter bomb (which the opening describes as "the biggest explosive ever") into the sun, which through some convoluted sci-fi logic will cause the flare to shoot out at a different angle, leaving earth unharmed.

Never mind that what I have just described to you sounds like a bad episode of the original Star Trek. Even with an ensemble cast (Charlton Heston, Peter Boyle, and Jack Palance), Solar Crisis can barely manage that level of mediocrity, thanks to a plot that starts simple, yet becomes increasingly nonsensical as time wears on.

The crowning achievement of this debacle of a movie is the addition of a villain character (played by Boyle) who insists on sabotaging the mission. Through means that are never explained, he sends an evil minion with an embarrassingly bad haircut to exercise some sort of vague electronic mind control over the space crew's genetically engineered scientist, played by female lead Annabel Schofield. Why is he sabotaging the mission? Because by his moronic viewpoint, he believes the flare won't happen and that when it doesn't, he will become fabulously wealthy because he has dug his evil claws into the stock market. In effect, you have a villain with the most absurdly stupid motivation imaginable.

The film's plot becomes amazingly convoluted and develops very slowly, in time tapping the use of characters who have only vague or uselessly brief roles in the storyline. I could sit here and explain in detail precisely what happens to demonstrate the sheer inability of the screenwriter to make a plot that actually clicks or holds your attention, but I am sitting here writing this review on Microsoft Word and I know for a fact that this would take three pages, and I would only succeed in losing your interest. But then again, you would probably get the same effect from watching the film.

Anyway, the film is miserably bogged down with exceedingly poor dialogue. Imagine if all that ever happened on the Star Trek Enterprise was that the characters spewed sci-fi jargon back and forth at each-other. Yes, I know, they already do that, but imagine if that's ALL they did, and that they used said jargon to set up vague and near-nonsensical scenes that produce no excitement, tension, or interest in the viewer whatsoever.

This is best exemplified at the point when a character in a Zero-G environment screws a bolt back onto a metal box before proceeding to cry in agony for a couple of minutes before suddenly exploding. The script alludes previously to the character risking an explosion, but doesn't bother to give any solid answer as to why or how this occurs, nor why he can't really escape. In totality, you have a sorry cross between the bizarre and the laughable.

Then we have several scenes where dramatic build-up leads to nothing. Jack Palance's performance is wasted on a character that serves only to drive the boy hero (don't ask) around the desert, before getting roughed up and killed by a bunch of suits. On his death-bed, Palance finally tells our boy hero his last name (while wearing a horrible bruised makeup job that makes it look like somebody put a balloon under his eyeball), which he kept quiet about before. Colonel Travis J. Richards. The boy repeats it quietly after he expires, giving viewers the impression that the name is of some significance later on in the film. Perhaps Charlton Heston's grizzled admiral character knows him and the plot will advance thereby once his name is repeated. Something. Anything.

Nope. Sorry. Any hopes you have will be dashed when this moment turns out only to be another of many pathetic, failed attempts at creating dramafor a character so flat and hackneyed that it will forever be a stain on Palance's career, just as those of the rest of the cast are similarly marred.

Completing the film is a painfully abrupt ending featuring Schofield piloting the bomb into the center of the sun in an effort to redeem her deeds while under the villain's spell, a climax which features another of the film's considerably well-done visual effects sequences that, even for the visibly elaborate care put into them, still always manage to make the film look just as chintzy as it really is. The saddest part about this film is the obviously large budget, tragically wasted on a stinker of a script and a supporting cast behind Boyle, Heston, and Palance that manage to nail the coffin shut with pure over-acting.

Grade: D-


Disowned by Richard C. Sarafian, this disaster stunk up Japanese theaters before coming to the States and going immediately to video, where it was not seen again until the Turner networks needed something other than infomercials to fill their 3am-6am time slots and found this tape at the bottom of their bin. The Smithee name is supposed to be used when the studio hacks the movie so badly that the director no longer wants his name attached to it. But I'm afraid that Sarafian can not blame the studio entirely on this one. The actors, mostly recent graduates of "Overacting 101", deliver one cornball line after another. The plot is convoluted. The special effects are unimpressive. The parts that aren't laughable are just plain boring. The script or the book must have been good - why else would Palance, Matheson, Boyle, or Heston agree to appear in this dud? But something went horribly wrong from the page to the screen. Summary: Avoid. Not even bad enough to be so-bad-it's-good.


It was one of those late night "It's there" I saw it things. Sometimes they are great. This one was awful, but it really shouldn't have been.

The movie had a really good cast. How can you fail when you have Charlsten Heston and Jack Pallance? We're talking Oscar winner turf here. It had good special effects. It even had some really good tits! And I mean nicely shown, full breast with full nipple and at one point even some beaver. But it didn't compensate for the one missing ingredient - a story! The plot was ludicrous. I don't mean the "solar crisis" sun exploding stuff, but that was bad enough. It was the rest of the stuff - the oh so stupid and totally predictable evil corporation stuff. Man that just STANK! No amount of good acting or cool space ships or fight scenes could get around that one.

I have seen the same cast members be incredibly good. I have seen wonderful science fiction movies that had miniscule casts and budgets. All the difference is in the writing.


One of the requirements of science fiction, at least before it starts to become satire, is that it be somewhat plausible. I would think that an anti-matter bomb would do considerably more damage than for what it was intended. But I'll leave that to the physicists who might have seen Solar Crisis.

It is a crisis the earth is facing because solar flares are getting totally out of hand. They're getting close to Earth, so much so that it's become unseasonably hot, as if the entire Earth were Death Valley. The answer is an anti-matter bomb which a space ship will have to take to the sun and explode it there. That will divert the flares off in say the direction of say Mercury providing it's not in direct alignment with the Earth.

Who to deliver it, but captain Tim Matheson and his crew. That is if he can keep his mind on the business at hand and not on runaway son, Corin Nemec. Taking care of the personal side of the family problems is admiral Charlton Heston, Matheson's father, and Nemec's grandfather.

There's a villain here too, Peter Boyle who is the CEO of a multi-national corporation which in this crisis is trying to control the world's food supply for the survivors. The idea he might not survive doesn't enter into his thinking. He's doing his best to sabotage Matheson's mission.

Solar Crisis seems like a bad mix of 2001, A Space Odyssey and Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea. Boyle seems to be taking his cue from Gene Hackman as Lex Luthor in Superman, apparently he's the only one in the cast who realizes he's in a turkey and overacts accordingly.

The rest of the cast are stalwart, true blue and dull. Except possibly desert rat Jack Palance who finds Nemec and cares for him.

The key here is that the film was directed by that noted Hollywood purveyor of flop films, Allen Smithee. The film gets as much as four stars for the cast involved and it was out in time for a Thanksgiving carving.


I had high hopes for this film, since it has Charlton Heston and Jack Palance. But those hopes came crashing to earth in the first 20 minutes or so. Palance was ridiculous. Not even Heston's acting or Annabel Schofield's beauty (or brief nude scenes) could save this film. Some of the space effects were quite good, but others were cheesy. The plot was ludicrous. Even sci-fi fans should skip this one. Grade F


Yet another movie with an interesting premise and some wondrous special effects falling right into the trash can.

Boring direction and performances (with the exception of the lovely Annabel Schofield who is much cuter as a brunette and probably deserves better material, and the ever earnest Charlton Heston) earn the rating of a real stinker.

It's amazing to watch Heston perform up to his usual par and display how really bad this movie is. He even plays in a sub-plot that kept me interested just to see how it tied back into the main line of the movie. The way they ended up resolving it was that they didn't. It simply falls off the end.

Really. Don't waste your time on this one.


The world is facing imminent destruction and a suicide mission is sent to the Sun to avert catastrophe by firing a bomb into its fiery heart: yes, it's Solar Crisis, aka Crisis 2050, which burned up a huge chunk of change that's never apparent on screen back in 1990 and returned barely enough to buy a Happy Meal for each of the cast in Japan before going straight to video (remember them?) in a re-edited version credited to one Alan Smithee. The plot hook's pretty much the same as Sunshine - suicide mission to the Sun, saboteur on board, logic cast adrift - except that this time they're not trying to reignite the sun but to prematurely detonate a solar flare before it can reach Earth. With a talking bomb. Voiced by Paul Williams. Who wants to be promoted so the crew will take him more seriously Given that the cast also includes Jack Palance at his most dementedly OTT, Charlton Heston at his most rigid, top-liner Tim Matheson at his most anonymous, the original Hills Have Eyes' unforgettable Michael Berryman (you may not remember the name, but you DO remember that face) and Peter Boyle as the industrialist out to sabotage the mission because, er, if it succeeds the world will be saved but his share price will go down, you'd expect if not a laugh-a-minute at least a laugh every reel. No joy. This is the worst kind of bad movie: a boring one. The fate of the world may be hanging in the balance but the whole film is shot with a complete lack of urgency or momentum at the same unvarying deadly slow pace. There's low-key and there's walking through it, but here the cast don't even do that. Instead, they just stand still looking at screens in near darkness for most of the time. You keep on hoping for Paul Williams' talking bomb to suffer an existential crisis, but instead the film just... stands there, doing next to nothing. Literally. This is one of the most inert movies ever made  so inert that if Clive Owen had been cast, he'd almost have looked lively by comparison. Even a poorly explained suicidal repair attempt fails to raise a fritter of interest since it mostly involves, yep, the cast just standing still looking at screens in near darkness. Even when the bomb prematurely goes into countdown before being launched they deal with the new crisis by standing still looking at screens in near darkness as if they had all the time in the world. Merchant-Ivory films have better action scenes.

Things aren't much livelier down on Earth where the movie spends most of it's running time with Matheson's son/Chuck's grandson Corin Nemec trying to hitch a ride to the spaceport across an arid landscape with Palance's insane desert artist "looking for that note out there while the chicks still dig me" while waylaid by rejects from a Mad Max ripoff and evil corporate suits who track him down so they can release him on a nice beach. Just don't expect logic, if you haven't already guessed that much. Best moment? A ditzy girl in a bar describing Jack Palance as "An old guy with white hair and a face like rotting leather," though Chucky Baby taking out the villain's aircraft with a bazooka fired from the hip from an office window or beating up a barfly who likes his beret are welcome morsels of camp in a film that for 99% of it's running time offers a whole lot of nuttin'. Richard C. Sarafian's slightly longer original cut that played in Japan offers an additional six minutes but cries out to be cut down to a more manageable 17 minutes: the director of Vanishing Point must have thanked his lucky stars when the re-edit gave him an excuse to take his name off the film. A film so bad it's not good, and painfully unfunny with it


I saw this movie a long time ago... luckily it was for free. I have to be one of the maybe twenty people who saw this movie in the theater. I don't remember a whole bunch of it, but I do remember I was incredibly bored, the plot made no sense and when I came out of the theater the only thing I could say was at least now I know what the worst movie I ever saw was. I just was incredibly bothered by one thing: if they can make the temperature as they approach the sun low enough for humans to survive, why can't they turn it down to a comfortable temperature instead of being all hot and sweaty? How stupid do they think we are?


This su*k! Why do they have to make movies that they must know su*k from the beginning? I mean, look at Alien from 1977. If the movie you´r about to make is not better than anything made billions of years before, why make it? I had problems with the plot and who the main character was. That's not good either.


Final Score: 1.8 (out of 10)

After seeing 'Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back' I must have been on a big Eliza Dushku kick when I rented this movie. 'Soul Survivors' is a junk "psychological thriller" dressed up like a trashy teen slasher flick - even to the point of having a masked killer stalk a cast of young up-and-comers like Dushku, Wes Bentley (American Beauty), Casey Affleck (Drowning Mona) and likable star Melissa Sagemiller. Luke Wilson is also in there, ridiculously miscast as a priest. The movie, the brainchild of writer/director Stephen Carpenter, seems like a mutant offspring of 'Open Your Eyes' or 'Vanilla Sky' and movies where a character (and the audience) is caught in a world of dillusion caused by an accident/death. The movie keeps churning out perplexing images and leaves us in a state of confusion the entire running time until this alternate reality is finally resolved. I don't think these movies are that entertaining- by their very nature- to begin with, but 'SS' is rock-bottom cheap trash cinema any way you slice it. The visuals, the script, the acting and the attempt at any originality all are throwaway afterthoughts to movies like this. Plus, it's PG-13 so it doesn't even deliver the gore or T&A to sustain it as a guilty pleasure (even the unrated version is tame). I had heard that the movie contained some "hot" shower scene between Dushku & Sagemiller. As the movie fell apart in front of me and all other entertainment seemed to be lost I found myself waiting patiently for the shower scene - at least I would get something out of this. Then it comes: the two girls get paint on their shirts, they jump in the shower fully clothed and scrub it off. That's it. People thought this was hot? 'Soul Survivors' is one of those drop-dead boring movies that is so weak and inept that it is hard to have ANY feelings at all toward it. It puts out nothing and is hardly worth writing about. In the end it leaves us empty. Carpenter's finale is a mess of flashing light and pounding sound and that's probably the most lively part. It will no doubt be making the rounds as a late night staple on USA or the Sci-Fi Channel, due to it's low cost and PG-13 rating - and that's probably best for it.


Like a relative that gives you a bad gift, Soul Survivors has its heart in the right place but trips up with a bad execution. Stephen Carpenter's writing/directing effort borrows freely from other, better films, such as Jacob's Ladder and Abre Los Ojos (Open Your Eyes). For those who haven't seen either of these films, I won't give the premise away; suffice to say it's not nearly as well handled here than in those two superior films.

Melissa Sagemiller stars as Cassie, about to go away to college. Her current boyfriend Sean (Ben Affleck) and ex-boyfriend Matt (Wes Bentley), both friends, and Annabel (acerbic Eliza Dushku) are in a car accident after being pursued by two killers (?) in transparent masks. She survives the wreck, but while attending college has visions of the hospital ordeal and dead people reappear and disappear, leaving her in a state of total confusion: who is dead? Who's alive? What's real?

Soul Survivors has the look of a bad been-there, done-that, gore-filled, blood-splattered, body-stacking teen exploitation flick. True, it has its share of killer-stalking-the-victim scenes (plentiful, repetitive, and mind-numbing), but at least it attempts to build suspense through ideas rather than cliches, unfortunately rather unsuccessfully. It breeds confusion much more often than cohesion, as the story becomes jumbled, messy and incoherent near key points of the mystery (predictable as it is.)

Horror fans who pick up a copy will have no idea they are in for a film that is more concerned with building an uneasy facade of reality than delivering a body count. Credit goes to Carpenter for attempting to create something beyond a derivative teen horror flick; too bad he's created a derivative psychological thriller. Sagemiller also deserves kudos for showing strength in the central performance, actually developing her character and evoking some sense of emotion as the unraveling Cassie. It's great the filmmakers try something different, but the film ends up a mixed bag and failed experiment.

4 out of 10


If the writer/director is reading this (and I imagine you are since you should now be out of work) then I must tell you - I have seen some bad movies in my time but this one gets the distinction of having the worst premise I've ever heard.

SPOILERS - Nothing happens!

A total waste of time. I laughed out loud at the end.

SIDE NOTE - (if the whole movie was her in a coma then does the scene where she sleeps with that guy mean someone raped her while she was knocked out?)

Utter rubbish.


(A possible spoiler or two)

 "Soul Survivors" is quite possibly the worst theatrical released movie ever. Nothing makes sense at all, there's some plot about a girl who has strange visions of people who may or may not be dead. The entire movie is just a bunch of random shots of things that don't really tie together, by the end of the film.

 Tha acting is non-existent, the camera work is jerky and the script is so confusing, it just makes the movie even harder to watch.

 I kept waiting for something to tie the movie together but nothing came. Definitely the worst film of the year. -****1/2 stars.


I wanted to watch this movie because of Eliza Dushku, but she only has a smaller part in it, and her character isn't very likable. However, the main character, played by Melissa Sagemiller, is extremely beautiful and a perfect delight to look at throughout the movie. This is really nothing but a showcase for her looks and talent. She does a very good job.

The story itself is, on the face of it, pretty nonsensical. After a car crash, some friends are possibly dead, but keeps on living their previous lives, while all sorts of mysterious things happen. Some bad guys are after them, but we never really find out who they are (possibly they were the ones in the other car, but we certainly don't hear anything about why they are after them). The final scenes especially seem filmically ambitious, but I can't get anything coherent out of it. The opening scene, where the bad guys (who wear some strange masks) cut a blond girl's wrist and gather up some of her blood is never explained or followed up on. Unless the bad guys are supposed to be a representation of the surgeons who're trying to pull Cassie (Sagemiller) back from the dead... but no, that doesn't seem to work. The bad guys are just bad guys; they really just mess up a story that might otherwise have been interesting. In a supernatural story about death and love and sacrifice, who the hell needs bad guys?

3 out of 10.


This is not a very good movie, but it's not a stinker either. It is very confusing and unnecessarily long so rent it at your own risk.

My GF and I have figured this movie out (we think) so here it is:

***MAJOR SPOILERS BELOW***

Firstly, this movie is actually quite simple after you remove all of the confusing unconscious-dream-state junk (95% of the movie.)

Ignoring the junk, what REALLY happened is this: A group of school friends go to a rave one night. They leave and get into a car accident where everyone but Cassie and Sean die. That's the simple cut down version. (That's right, I said Sean, bear with me)

Right after the accident, Cassie lays in the hospital stuck in between life & death right up until the very end of the movie. This is where the dream part starts.

The movie is called SOUL Survivors, right? Cassie's mind and soul carries on after the accident interacting with the other souls (Annie, Matt, Raven, the 2 weirdos and Jude) along with images conjured up by her mind (Sean, school and everything else around her). The souls continue doing what they were defined as: Annie the rave-going chick, the 2 weirdo-killers (from opening scene), Father Jude still helping people etc.

We are then taken on a very long ride, shown lots of images (many of which my GF and I still can't tie in) but it all boils down to it not being Cassie's time to die.

At the end, Cassie wakes up in the hospital after being "dead" for a while. Her family and Sean are there. This is reality again. She's OK.

Then the director adds a little extra spice by trying to confuse us again by showing a little dream snippet of her in the wheelchair being strangled. But this part is really just a nightmare, and she wakes up beside Sean, obviously still dealing with her traumatic experience.

Due to space restrictions, we didn't cover every little thing, but feel free to drop us an e-mail if you want to.


An incoherent mess with a gratingly deafening sound track, "Soul Survivors" is the latest entry in the "who's dead and who's alive" genre of horror films. Two teenaged couples, Sean and Cassie and Matt and Annabel, prepare to go off to different colleges, but before they part until Thanksgiving Break, they attend one last fling at a rave-type party in some burnt-out church at the suggestion of lusciously slutty Annabel (Eliza Dushku, a.k.a. Faith, the other vampire slayer). Motiveless creepy guys start paying far too much attention to Cassie (the generic Melissa Sagemiller) for reasons that are never explained, and before long, the quartet leave the party. Driving away in their SUV, they are pursued and then passed by the motiveless creepy guys, who promptly and inexplicably do an intentional 180 in the middle of the highway, causing a nasty and fatal accident as the SUV flips over an embankment and plunges into a river. Sean is killed (or is he?), and Cassie spends the rest of the movie coping with loneliness and guilt (she was driving) when she's not being haunted by Sean's ghost or chased by those motiveless creepy guys. Much unexplained incoherence follows as Cassie's mental state degenerates further, until we reach the predictable conclusion. So, who is dead and who is alive? After ninety minutes of this purgatory, who actually cares?


I didn't have HUGE expectations for this film when renting it for $1 at the video store, but the box at least showed a little promise with its "killer cut" of "more gore! more sex!" Can't go wrong there! Well... needless to say, the box is a fraud. How in the hades did actors and actresses of this caliber sign on for a film this low?

It all opens with a drunken college girl walking out of a frat house or some other building like that and saying some useless crap to her boyfriend (?) as a camera on a bad steadicam follows her. Then she gets chased by some dude in a clear plastic mask and grabbed by another. They slit her wrists for no real reason and you can see when they "cut" her that someone drew the cuts with what looks like a crayon.

From there, repeat the same theme of the girl getting chased/killed unbrutally by two guys for about 84 more minutes. Add in one tit shot. That is Soul Survivors.

I wouldn't have had a problem with this film had the box not frauded me into renting the flick. If I rent a bad film that claims to have more violence and sex.... I want more violence and sex! One full frontal shot in 85 minutes from a chick who is clearly androginous and gore that would not scare a child does not cut it. If this is the Killer Cut, what is the Theatrical Cut?! Of course, I doubt this garbage was actually put into theaters in the first place. Shame on the actors in this film. I could see them making their screen debuts in here because they have not done anything before, but they were all established before this was released. I don't know if it was filmed before they had all been established and the studio sat on the film until they were semi-big names or not. But what i want to know is.... they really spent $14 million on this film?!


First off let me say that this has to be on the top of my list of boring movies. Nothing, and I mean nothing in this movie is even remotely thrilling. Most of it is very confusing and as it progresses you just wish it would end!! Some people want a movie that makes them "think" through the entire thing, to which I say..."More power to you"!! I on the other hand just want to be entertained. Which brings me back to this stinker, entertainment it is not. This movie is stupid and a complete waste of time. Seems that most here agree also. Most of this didn't make any sense, and by the time you think you have one scene figured out another lame scene comes around and....well I guess you see where this is going. Avoid, this one sucks....bad!!


Melissa Sagemiller,Wes Bentley,Eliza Dushku and Casey Affleck play young students at Middleton College in the town of Middleton.The four teenagers form two love triangles.One night during an ominous full moon they drive and argue along a slippery and twisting mountain road.Not looking properly they careen into another car and one or more of them are killed.The ghostly nightmare begins...Pretty lousy and politically correct horror flick without gore and nudity.It's obviously influenced by "Carnival of Souls".The cinematography is decent,unfortunately there is zero suspense.4 out of 10-just another instantly forgettable teeny-bopper trash.


Steve Carpenter cannot make horror movies. First of all, the casting was very wrong for this movie. The only decent part was the hot brown haired girl from Buffy the Vampire Slayer. This movies has no gore(usually a key ingredient to a horror movie), no action, no acting, and no suspense(also a key ingredient). Wes Bentley is a good actor but he is so dry and plain in this that it's sad. There were a few parts that were supposed to be funny(continuing the teen horror/comedy movies) and no one laughed in the audience. I thought that this movie was rated R, and I didn't pay attention and realized it had been changed to PG-13. Anyway, see this movie if you liked I Still Know What You Did Last Summer. That's the only type of person who would find this movie even remotely scary. And seriously, this is to you Steve Carpenter, stop making horror movies. This movie makes Scream look like Texas Chainsaw Massacre.


...had I watched it in my teenage years. This movie was mildly entertaining. What I liked about Soul Survivors were the gothic atmosphere during the party scenes, and the constant flips between 'dream' and 'reality.

Had there not been movies like 'The 6th Sense' and 'Don't Look Now' I would have been surprised by the ending.


Quite unimpressive. The 'twists' are all pretty predictable, if you've seen any movies within the last ten years, and the few somewhat interesting parts (wherein someone utilizes context clues to make a decision) are few and lack much punch, since the 'secret' has already been shown before these clues are explained.

(spoilers, sorta)

The acting is decent enough. The story simply isn't very interesting. The whole 'still awake' premise becomes nullified by the astral projection stuff(not kidding).

The surgery scene is initially tense, a bit discomforting, but then becomes utterly banal.

Not horrible, but not memorable. Terrence Howard's least interesting role to date, so far as I've seen.

Kind of boring, overall.


I have seen already fantastic stories, but the premises of this one are so unbelievable that it comes very close to being ridiculous. A rich and young guy undergoes a heart transplant the day after his marriage, and he is somehow witnessing his own surgery and the plot of his surgeons to kill him. Even if there is a medical explanation to such a phenomenon what next happens is a mixture of dialog among ... say ... souls? ... maybe and real life where the dedicated mother will do everything to save the life of her son. There is no shade of suspense or thrill, just a combination of a bad and simplistic plot with a series of coincidences that can never happen in life.

This is not to say that the film is completely lacking quality - actually first time director Joby Harold does a decent job in directing a good team of actors that includes Hayden Christensen at his first major role after having taken off the Anakin Skywalker costume, fabulous Jessica Alba and super-gifted Lena Olin. All would have deserved a better story.


For a film about a killer this is surprisingly dull.

Nothing much happens and even when things do happen they don't generate any real excitement or interest.

The acting is good from the two leads, Cassetti in particular delivers a great performance combining the certainty and stupidity of Succo but the rest of the cast also do what they need to.

The problem is that there is poor writing and direction and the fact that as a true story it isn't interesting, Succo is not a unique character, he isn't interesting or exciting.

Films of this sort normally try to generate tension or empathy or outrage and this generates nothing except a feeling of regret that you wasted your time watching it.


Cedric Kahn's films have been character-based, rather than action-based (I'm thinking of L'Ennui and Feux rouges) so it is jarring to see this series of really expert car chases interspersed with some plodding attempts to give character to Succo. I don't find Stefano Cassetti to be an interesting actor; he reminds me of pro athletes who are coaxed into movies, like Bret Favre. That blank stare looks like a really vicious deer caught in the headlights. A real actor would have forced us to reflect more on Succo's personality, rather than admiring his skill at carjacking.

The little acting there is comes mainly from Isild le Besco as the needy schoolgirl Succo takes by storm. The interview at the police office is a marvel of bland obstinacy with a little fear of the future blended in. Le Besco apart, there is little to recommend this film.


What a wasted opportunity to actually make an interesting film about a complicated subject. There is very little exploration about what it really feels like to be a straight (or gay) man working in a gay sexual environment.The dancers keep talking about their art as if it has no erotic component. They may not all be prostitutes for hire, but they are indeed sex workers playing out fantasies and selling private sessions where more than dancing is offered. From the film one would get the impression that they mainly appeal to the women who go to the gay clubs and then end up hiring the "dancers" for private sessions. Even the shots in the club only show women in front of the stage and the "dancers" only playing to the women in the audience. This just isn't the reality of these clubs. It would be pretty hard to make a living doing private dances for straight women and couples. So what do they really feel about their gay admirers and clients? We learn very little. Instead we get filler. A gay activist who adds nothing to the study of straight dancers. A manager who tells us about the costumes for the drag acts but offers no insight into the dancers' lives and attitudes.

The pictures of Mexico City are generic. The phallic montage showing sausages roasting is ridiculous.

This is a totally simplistic film which should be of interest only to those who want to see a few pictures of pretty boys dancing. The rest of the movie is an insult to gay men.


I saw Chan Is Missing when it first came out, about four years after moving from San Francisco to New York. Maybe it was the perspective of a few years away, but this movie seemed to capture the essence of the city and its people better than anything else I'd ever seen (still does). It concentrates on one particular community - the Chinese - but that's fine, because so much of the city's soul is refracted through the settings, the faces, and the maybe above all the voices of the characters.

This isn't the tourists' San Francisco. The settings are humble and everyday: a taxi cab, the kitchen of a Chinese restaurant, Richmond District row houses, little Chinatown apartments and small-business offices, the piers, a Philippine elder center. This is what the city looks and feels like day to day to the people who live there - even now, in the era of Silicon Gulch urban redevelopment. Unlike, say, Dirty Harry (in its own way an excellent San Francisco movie as well), everything is filmed at street level: We come to understand the characters' points of view from the perspective their surroundings give them, not from some fancy vertiginous shooting.

Wang apparently filmed in B&W because he didn't have the money to do otherwise, yet one of the strongest visual elements of the movie is the natural light he achieves. The often harsh, pervasive quality of the sunlight is one of my closest associations with San Francisco: It seems to expose everything, bringing the buildings, the hills, the other landmarks down in scale and, in a funny way, making the people you pass on the streets seem more individual and potentially closer to you than they might in another place. Wang's photography perfectly conveys this, and even helps the story along at points.

Wang captures the speech and conversational style of Chinese and other San Franciscans better than anyone ever has, I think. If there's such thing as a true San Francisco "accent," it's what you hear from the balding taxi medallion broker (I think) who appears talking on the phone in one scene (listen to the way he calls the person on the other end "ya dingaling!").

The story is poignant and, despite a few very small missteps, makes its points beautifully about the longings that pull at the hearts of people living in old immigrant communities - including the justified political and ethnic resentments, and little ironic amusements, that help to fuel them. All this is communicated delicately - perhaps why some respondents here think the film meanders. It doesn't - suffice it to say that the two cab drivers' quest for Chan becomes a quest for something more personal.

Chan Is Missing finishes up with a Chinatown travelogue sequence backed by a goofy novelty song from the 1930s (I guess) about San Francisco and all its crazy diversity. An American caricature, yes, but somehow not entirely off the mark either.


I watched this on a whim because it was available and I'd heard the Thumb movies were funny. This one was not. The majority of the jokes were based around "Geranium's" physique and, in turn, Kate Winslet's. I think it's really pathetic of the the "Thumbtanic" creators to stoop so low to make jabs at a respected actress just because she (heaven forbid) doesn't starve herself into the model of ideal modern beauty.

My favorite part was the line that goes something like, "Hey, I have a great idea! Let's swim over to this makeshift raft that no one else seems to see!" Thirty seconds of amusement out of a 26 minute movie does not redeem its value.


The Thumb idea isn't such a winner the second time round. ThumbTanic wasn't as good as Thumb Wars for a number of reasons. Primarily, I think, Mr Oedekerk had far less to work with in the Titanic send-up. Unlike Star Wars, the movie Titanic hasn't (yet?) become a cultural myth and there are far fewer references to be made which will resonate with the audience.

In ThumbTanic, the holes are filled by one-off jokes which don't really seem related to anything. For example, the hero's insinuation that the heroine isn't clean during the "jump off end of ship" scene - it's not funny. Rather, you just think to yourself, "Did I miss something in the original movie?". There were too many of these type of baseless jokes (cf. arachnid).

By contrast, the send-up of the smarmy ship's designer had meaning and was funny. Also very funny was the send up of the bloke in the movie who wanted to go "faster" as a maniac running around demanding *everything* be "faster" including the sinking of the ship and himself being the first to die. These sort of jokes meant something in the Titanic context and lent meaningful humour to Thumbtanic.

The thumb "media", the faces and the voices, are still amusing. The props and sets and the CG animation are worthy of appreciation. Overall, although ThumbTanic proves that quirkiness alone won't work, this filmette still keeps you amused and chuckling to the end.


What this movie fails from answering is how wrong this war is (and most US wars recently made only to get some oil).

How many innocent civilian casualties there has been, how many lives perished and how blatantly stupid the perpetrators are.

So, let me ask you - if American soldier kills women and children apart from enemy, its OK, but if government accidentally kills their own forces by deadly chemicals while killing many civilians as well, it is not? Your logic fails, gentleman.

I'll give it 5 for the solid performance and 1 to everything else, 3 in total.


Another vast conspiracy movie that tries to blame the US government and the Armed Forces (especially the Army) for every disaster since the Great Flood. Anyone who has ever served time in the US military can see how bogus this film is. Uniforms, equipment, sets, and mannerisms are all wrong. (And of course, all Senior Officers are either corrupt criminals or total idiots.) Blatant propaganda with no attempt at objectivity. Most of the theories presented have been disproven over the past few years. Uses every cliche', rumor, and Urban Legend from the Gulf-all are presented as gospel. (The truth is, no one knows for sure why some GW vets are sick and others are healthy as horses.) PS This is not new. War is NOT fun and I know WWII, Korean, and Viet Nam vets with some pretty serious ailments, too. (And the government has the responsibility to take care of all of them.) Sensationalistic movies like this will not solve the problem!


Apparently none of the previous reviewers,most of whom praise the film for its accuracy, have actually read a biography of Louis Pasteur.The most glaring inaccuracy is in the relationship between Pasteur and Napoleon III.Back in the 1930's the latter was invariably shown in a bad light.While far from an admirable character-he was an inept politician and a self-appointed "military genius" who allowed France to be dragged into a disastrous war,he was not the stupid reactionary depicted here. He had an intelligent interest in science,and like many other people in the 19th century saw a bright future because of the improvements it would bring.Far from exiling Pasteur, he was his PATRON,building him a laboratory and providing him with all the resources that he needed for his research.While the lab was under construction, Pasteur became gravely ill.A bureaucrat, deciding it was a waste of money to build a laboratory for someone who would soon be dead, ordered work halted on his own authority.When the emperor heard about this, his outrage shook the bureaucracy so that there was a flurry of buck-passing, and work promptly resumed.The Emperor personally visited Pasteur to comfort him and reassure him that he would get his lab.The emperor would often bring members of his court to admire Pasteur's projects,and it was obvious to everyone that Pasteur was one of the emperor's favorites.Pasteur's main worry concerning the Emperor was that Napoleon thought Pasteur was virtually a miracle worker who could do almost anything, and was constantly assigning him tasks outside of his previous experience.Pasteur, a very modest man, was always protesting this, but Napoleon would say that he had complete faith in him,and Pasteur despite his misgivings, always came through.They always had a close and friendly relationship,and after the Emperor was overthrown, Pasteur refused to say a bad word about him,grateful to the end of his life.

The part about his daughter having the baby, and Pasteur sacrificing his principles to get a doctor, never happened.The part about the anthrax and rabies, for which he was famous, is generally correct, but the notion that the anthrax experiment raised him from obscurity to fame is false.He was famous and respected at the time this happened.This movie is OK from a dramatic standpoint,but very distorted as biography.


Entertainment Tonight has been going down hill for the last few years, but as of last night (Aug 17th 2006) they reached a new low.

In an effort to try to hype up their broadcast, they decided to post actual photos of JonBenet Ramsey's body in their teasers last night ...saying "Pictures from the case you have never seen before". The two photos were graphic and very disturbing. One was of the side of her face and head/neck and you could clearly see the cord that was used to strangle her around her neck, and bruising on her face. This was so hideously awful, I could not believe it. How has this got to do with ANYTHING remotely related to Hollywood Entertainment?? Nothing!! They have dropped their level of dignity and values to a new low....and it shows. This used to be THE premiere show to watch...and it's just garbage now.

I will watch Access Hollywood from now on.


This show is unbelievable in that . . . what it represents and what it focuses on and . . . words cannot describe how insane ET is. They will report anything. If a celebrity is even remotely indirectly connected to the story ET will report on it. If a dog poop in the Tom Cruise's yard they will report on it. If a celebrity dies . . . they will talk about it for weeks on end to the point where the public envy that celebrity. If a celebrity is on trial . . . ET will report it for MONTHS on end. There is no end to what this show will reports and no time frame that dictates how long they will focus on a story. Is it even considered legitimates reporting? The reports are so dang annoying too, with harsh rambling voices and end with an unnecessary pause to convey a sense of important. I cannot watch this show without questioning humanity's existence. ET is one big reason I avoid pre-evening shows in general. I regret that IMDb can only allow a minimum of one star rating and not zero or even in the negatives. For this show deserve -10 Stars.


ET's obsession with Dannielynn Smith is despicable. Leave the child alone. With all the constant attention she'll most likely grow up psychotic, depressed or worse. Think of Princess Diana and how she longed for privacy. Now poor little rich girl Ashley Olson just wants to be left alone. No wonder Greta Garbo became a recluse and said "I want to be alone". How much does ET make off this little girl? Does ET not have anything better to report on? I bet there's lots of people who really don't care what color her birthday cake and balloons were. By the way, I never heard that Anna Nichole ever won any of those court cases over the will and her inheritance. Who is paying for the lifestyle of Larry, Howard and little Dannielynn? Could it be ET?


Like most people I love "A Christmas Story". I had never even heard of this film and perhaps for good reason--it is awful. Same locale, same narrator, same director but the warm fuzziness of the original was lacking. Charles Grodin was a poor choice to replace Darrin McGavin but I cannot imagine anyone being able to replace him. The story seems forced and lacks the sweetness of the original. The interaction with the neighbors, the Bumpuses, is ridiculous. In "A Christmas Story" Ralphie's obsession with the BB gun seems cute but his obsession in this movie is boring. Scud Farkus, the original neighborhood bully, is replaced in this film by yet another kid with braces and a weird hat but with little of the Scud Farkus menacing appeal. It would be pretty difficult to equal the original, even if this movie had been made with the original crew.


"A Christmas Story" is one of many people's all-time most beloved films. ACS was able to take the viewer to a time and a place in such a way that very few films ever have. It had a sweetness and goodwill to it that is rare.

So I awaited (and awaited) its sequel, "It Runs In The Family" . The film was almost released a couple of times, only to be pulled at the last minute. When it finally came out, IRITF was (and is, I guess) a total failure.

The sets and cinematography were just fine, but the directing totally, completely missed the mark. The film was nothing more than a cash-flow formula of lazy casting, lazy writing, and disconnected acting.

The narrator, Jean Shepard, who was one of America's great humorists and story-tellers, forced upon us a false reprise of the warm wit he used in ACS. He over-emoted, and why he did that I'll never know. He somehow managed to become an annoying, overwrought parody of himself.

The writing and acting in IRITF is inauthentic and forced. The actors may have seen ACS, but whatever wit and nuance that was in ACS mustn't have registered at all on any of them. The acting was embarrassingly slapstick and bereft of any of Shepard's dry humor.

ACS will always be a real treasure, but to call IRITF a sequel is to insult all of the fans of Jean Shepard and ACS.


Since its release in 1983, "A Christmas Story", the Jean Shepherd-narrated story of his alter-ego, Ralphie, has become a true classic. "My Summer Story", however, still has Shepherd as the narrator, but it has absolutely none of the charm, and the characters are nowhere near the caliber of the original film.

"My Summer Story" is basically a mishmash of mediocre and just plain not very interesting stories, which include hillbilly neighbors and battling tops. Charles Grodin, who I normally like, is extremely unlikeable in the role of the father (more aptly handled by Darren McGavin in the original), and his character never seems anything but forced. Kiernan Culkin is a poor substitute for Ralphie, and the little brother is all but forgotten here. Only mom seems to have any worth here and perhaps that's because she beans a cinema manager with a gravy boat when he pushes his luck too far with irate housewives on "free dish night".

The stories in this are mostly inconsequential and stretched paper-thin. May appeal to the extremely undemanding but as a sequel to "A Christmas Story", it's a very poor one and not worth most people's time. 2 out of 10.


Funny how a studio thinks it can make a sequel to what was a classic Christmas story with an entirely new cast and expect it to float. Sure they used various actors for Batman, but in that instance Batman was a classic character before any of the actor donned his cape. In this instance you had a classic character in the blond headed horn rimmed glasses wearing Ralphy that wanted a red ryder bb gun for Christmas... Somehow we are supposed to forget him and accept another little boy that share no resemblance to the original... If I had not known it was a sequel I wouldn't have guessed it from the cast... except of course Charles Grodin tries so hard to imitate Darrin McGavin that your are constantly reminded that the original was far better...

In the end it might have work if they had cast the movie better. They should have looked for look a likes or simply ignored the original and not tried to copy its look and feel. This one is just a cheap imitation. The Ralphy evokes no sympathy just a desire to seem his character shoot his eye out or die.


Really bad. Why anyone thinks this is a good film let alone funny is a true mystery. I like comedies as much as the next man and I LOVED "A Christmas Story." The fact that it has the same director and was based on the same writer's memoirs has me completely puzzled as to why this film is such a complete failure on every level. Charles Grodin is woefully miscast as the father for starters. For another it does not seem to have the same pacing -- it just doesn't flow well. Everything seems tired and forced. The joy of life that permeated the first film is completely absent here -- you just want the movie to end. I wouldn't even recommend this movie for curiosity-seekers who enjoyed "A Christmas Story." It's that bad. 1/10.


This is an in-name-only sequel to "A Christmas Story," originally entitled "A Summer Story." Ralphie narrates his family adventures during the summer when they moved to a small hick-town in the middle of nowhere. Hilarity, unfortunately, does not ensue.

The original worked because of its irreverent nature and honesty - everyone could relate to it. This one is simply stupid and not very funny at all. Charles Grodin's last movie - no wonder! It's one of his poorest roles. I felt sorry for him.

Mary Steenburgen is given little to do, everything's formulaic, and you have to wonder why they even bothered.

And I mean, come on - a competition with spinning tops?! Sadly, it's the best part of the movie...


A Christmas Story Is A Holiday Classic And My Favorite Movie. So Naturally, I Was Elated When This Movie Came Out In 1994. I Saw It Opening Day and Was Prepared To Enjoy Myself. I Came Away Revolted And Digusted. The Anticipation that Rang True In A Christmas Story Is Curiously Missing from This mess. A Red Ryder BB Gun Is Better to get than a chinese top.And It Is Not Very Funny At all. Charles Grodin Is Good but the Buck Stops There. Bottom Line:1 Star. Don't Even Bother.


This movie was not very entertaining, certainly NO WHERE as original or as good as A Christmas Story. The characters (except the youngest) try to emulate the preceding actors, and they fail. The hillbilly neighbors come out of nowhere as they weren't a part of the first movie. This really sucked, might have been good with the original cast, then again maybe not because the story is so weak. Skip it.


Ugh! Where to begin ... first, Campbell Scott's non-stop angst becomes a real turn-off after awhile (a very short while) as he internalizes his mounting anguish, curiosity and anger. Only we don't care! These characters as presented by the writer and director are wholly unlikable, and therein lies the key. They haven't given us anything to make us care if they are adulterous and whether or not they are still in love with one another. When Scott quietly tells his wife, "I could kill you" before their three daughters at the dinner table, after the shock of his selfishly poor timing wore off I almost wished that he had--and then done the same thing to the smug, wisecracking apparition of Denis Leary before being hauled off the the looney bin. An utter waste of time and perhaps--only perhaps--resources.


Basically, a dentist husband-wife team and their 3 daughters deal with infidelity. The premise is interesting, the acting is good, and the music, although sometimes abrupt and without direction, is pretty cool.

The problem is the plot. The husband dentist drops his wife off backstage at an opera before the show (she has a minor role) and then walks back in to give her something, but sees her with another man. The rest of the movie deals with his angst about this episode, his visual hallucinations and a macho alter-ego (Denis Leary, a former patient of his) and his fear in confronting his wife lest he will have to "do something about it." I won't tell you the ending, but let me say that the film goes nowhere and the ending is like a sputtering whimper. The motivations of the characters are missing: Why is she cheating on him? He's a dentist, decent looking, good father. The film doesn't say. Who's she doing it with? Don't expect any answers on that either. Why does he want to keep the marriage going in spite of all this? Who knows. What purpose does all the kids vomiting serve? Where is this film going? Good performances by Campbell Scott and Hope Davis (and Denis Leary as comic relief)are completely wasted by this stilted nonsense which doesn't know if it wants to be American Beauty or a family film. A root canal is more interesting. Avoid it.


I tend to like character-driven films. I also think Hope Davis turns in consistently good work, so I had high hopes for this movie. Those hopes were soon dashed.

The main flaw with this movie is the direction. There are a lot of scenes that are daydream sequences. The movie makes frequent use of the Denis Leary character as the alter ego of the Campbell Scott character. It doesn't work for me at all. This would have worked better as a play than a movie.

There are problems with the plot as well. It is important that the characters in a movie take a journey and end up in a place different from where they started. I didn't feel that the characters grew in the experiences portrayed in the movie.

Finally, the editing wasn't well done, either. There was a very big sag in the middle of the movie that was exceptionally boring.

Except for acting, which I felt was consistently strong, this movie failed in almost every aspect of cinema.


There may something poetically right in seeing dentists suffer. Suffer they do, in this dreary, truly dreadful film, but they cause the audience to undergo pain of the non-dental variety too. If you ever wanted to see a movie full of screaming kids, barfing kids, sick kids, lots of long, long meaningful glances, a deadpan wife and a concerned husband: it's all here for you. Boring, overlong, it stands out as one of those examples that scream out: why? Is there a saving grace? Yes, there is. There is a short scene from Nabucco, with some pretty good singing. Save your money, or if it's on TV or cable, save your time. You can always read a book or make an omelette.


Yeh, I know -- you're quivering with excitement. Well, *The Secret Lives of Dentists* will not upset your expectations: it's solidly made but essentially unimaginative, truthful but dull. It concerns the story of a married couple who happen to be dentists and who share the same practice (already a recipe for trouble: if it wasn't for our separate work-lives, we'd all ditch our spouses out of sheer irritation). Campbell Scott, whose mustache and demeanor don't recall Everyman so much as Ned Flanders from *The Simpsons*, is the mild-mannered, uber-Dad husband, and Hope Davis is the bored-stiff housewife who channels her frustrations into amateur opera. One night, as Dad & the daughters attend one of Davis' performances, he discovers that his wife is channeling her frustrations into more than just singing: he witnesses his wife kissing and flirting with the director of opera. (One nice touch: we never see the opera-director's face.) Dreading the prospect of instituting the proceedings for separation, divorce, and custody hearings -- profitable only to the lawyers -- Scott chooses to pretend ignorance of his wife's indiscretions.

Already, the literate among you are starting to yawn: ho-hum, another story about the Pathetic, Sniveling Little Cuckold. But Rudolph, who took the story from a Jane Smiley novella, hopes that the wellworn-ness of the material will be compensated for by a series of flashy, postmodern touches. For instance, one of Scott's belligerent patients (Denis Leary, kept relatively -- and blessedly -- in check) will later become a sort of construction of the dentist's imagination, emerging as a Devil-on-the-shoulder advocate for the old-fashioned masculine virtues ("Dump the b---h!", etc.). When not egged-on by his imaginary new buddy, Scott is otherwise tormented by fantasies that include his wife engaged in a three-way with two of the male dental-assistants who work in their practice. It's not going too far to say that this movie is *Eyes Wide Shut* for Real People (or Grown-Ups, at least). Along those lines, Campbell Scott and Hope Davis are certainly recognizable human beings as compared to the glamourpuss pair of Cruise and Kidman. Further, the script for *Secret Lives* is clearly more relevant than Kubrick's. As proof, I offer the depiction of the dentists' children, particularly the youngest one who is about 3 or 4 years old, and whose main utterance is "Dad! Dad! Dad! Dad! Dad! DAD!!!" This is Family Life, all right, with all its charms.

The movie would make an interesting double-bill with *Kramer vs. Kramer*, as well. One can easily trace the Feminization of the American Male from 1979 to 2003. In this movie, Dad is the housewife as in *Kramer*, but he is in no way flustered by the domestic role, unlike Dustin Hoffman, who was too manly to make toast. Here, Scott gets all the plumb chores, such as wiping up the children's vomit, cooking, cleaning, taking the kids to whatever inane after-school activity is on the docket. And all without complaint. (And without directorial commentary. It's just taken for granted.)

The film has virtues, mostly having to do with verisimilitude. However, it's dragged down from greatness by its insistence on trendy distractions, which culminate in a long scene where a horrible five-day stomach flu makes the rounds in the household. We must endure pointless fantasy sequences, initiated by the imaginary ringleader Leary. Whose existence, by the way, is finally reminiscent of the Brad Pitt character in *Fight Club*. And this finally drives home the film's other big flaw: lack of originality. In this review, I realize it's been far too easy to reference many other films. Granted, this film is an improvement on most of them, but still. *The Secret Lives of Dentists* is worth seeing, but don't get too excited about it. (Not that you were all that excited, anyway. I guess.)


It's common practice for a film about repression to be somewhat muted in style and tone. There's a difference, however, between using restraint and encouraging narcolepsy among audience members. In "The Secret Lives of Dentists," starring Campbell Scott and Hope Davis, director Alan Rudolph plays as close to the vest as possible, with the result being a film that never amounts to much beyond a rumination on how teeth are a metaphor for married life.

Scott gives a fine performance in the role of David Hurst, a dentist married to another dentist (Davis). Rudolph sets up the dynamic of their relationship quickly - he is completely absorbed in the day-to-day duties of being the parenthood, she is quietly disillusioned with their frantic family life - and then ratchets up the tension when Scott may or may not witness his wife with another man. From this point on, the film focuses on whether or not David is going to confront his wife Dana about her possible adultery, or whether she will beat him to the punch and leave for good. From time to time, David is treated to visits from an imaginary "friend" in the form of a former patient played by Denis Leary (borrowing heavily from Brad Pitt's Tyler Durden in "Fight Club").

While there is enough uncertainty about Dana's infidelity and David's instability to warrant examination, the last two thirds of the film are embarrassingly empty of theme or narrative. Instead, Rudolph creates drama out of a nasty fever that travels slowly through the Hurst family, culminating in a pointless hospital visit at the film's climax. The film never picks up on the hints at what David is really capable of if he wasn't so dedicated to his family; neither does it spend much time looking at Dana's precarious balancing act between her family life and her other, more fulfilling ambitions.

By choosing to spend the majority of the film worrying over a fever gone awry, Rudolph kills the momentum of his film. By the time the fifth member of the family shows up sweating and sickly, the film has used up all the good graces of Scott's well-measured performance. David and Dana end up retracing their steps over and over again until a less than cathartic finale. With nothing to build on over the last hour, the conclusion seems awkward and patched-on. "The Secret Lives of Dentists" takes a common theme and does nothing to improve upon it. Altogether, a disappointing, unimaginative film.


An idiotic dentist finds out that his wife has been unfaithful. So, no new story lines here. However, the authors managed to create a stupid, disgusting film. If you enjoy watching kids vomiting, or seeing a dentist imagining that he is pulling all his wife's teeth out in a bloody horror-type, go see (or rent) the film. If not, move on to something else (MY FAIR LADY, anyone?)


Alan Rudolph is a so-so director, without that special touch. As an example, there was one shot in The Secret Lives of Dentists in the dental office which could have expressed the entire relationship between the husband and wife. Rudolph squandered it. The camera is in the hallway looking through the doorways of the two dental offices, with Dana and Dave each alone in their respective rooms. You get the idea of their desolation and isolation, but not much more. The lighting, the colors, the body language, the facial expressions could all have been vastly improved upon. If I were directing, I would have spent all day, if necessary, to get that shot right. That's the beauty and power of film: it can express so much, whole lives, in a matter of seconds

The shot with the toddler stepping in the puddle of puke could have been improved on. The child should have shown more fascination with the puddle, should have stomped and shuffled her feet, should have had her head bent down to look at the puddle with all her attention.

Campbell didn't deliver. He plays a uncommunicative man, true, but instead of conveying his inner turmoil in voice, gesture, body movement, the film relies on voice-over narration and dialogue with his imaginary macho alter-ego, played by Denis Leary.


I'm sorry, but this is such a bad movie it's hilarious. Football hooligans arguing in a travel lodge? Suits? Shades?! Alan clearly had no idea what he was talking about when he made this, it is as far from the truth as you can get.

The casting was atrocious...Gary Oldman as a football hooligan? He doesn't look scary, act scary or even come across as someone who would like football. And as for Yeti? What the hell? Suits, shades and sitting in a travelodge childishly taunting each other with "its about time you got your nappy on". Please.

And the Yeti's gang spraying the ICC's underwear?

I don't see how anyone can even take this film seriously!.

4/10. Its possibly the most inaccurate portrayal of the crisis of the late eighties hooliganism i have ever seen.


What a shame that Alan Clarke has to be associated with this tripe. That doesn't rule it out however; get a group of lads and some Stellas together and have a whale of a time running this one again and again and rolling around on the floor in tears of laughter. Great wasted night stuff. Al Hunter homes in on a well publicised theme of the late 80s- that hooligans were well organised and not really interested in the football itself- often with respectable jobs (estate agent???). But how Clarke can convince us that any of the two-bit actors straying from other TV productions of low quality (Grange Hill) or soon to go on to poor quality drama (Eastenders) can for a nanosecond make us believe that they are tough football thugs is laughable. Are we really to believe that the ICF (on whom of course the drama is based) would EVER go to another town to fight with just SIX blokes?

The ICF would crowd out tube stations and the like with HUNDREDS. Andy Nicholls' Scally needs to be read before even contemplating a story of this nature. The acting is appalling and provides most of the laughs- Oldman is so camp it is unbelievable. Most of them look as though they should be in a bubble of bath of Mr Matey. A true inspiration to anyone with a digital video camera who thinks they can make a flick- go for it.


This is very much a television version of the tale, the film starts out like an episode of 'Xena...', with little meaningful dialog or character description. It does get a bit more substantive after a while, but all characters are still cartoonish.

Salma is the exotic beauty. Richard Harris is an evil and sexually repressed Frollo, fiending to bust a nut up in Salma. The other characters, including Quasimodo are quite forgettable.

Its also a sorta liberal version of the story, Frollo is a suppressor of Enlightenment ideals, like the abbot in 'Name of the Rose', and Quasimodo is a champion of liberty. The shadowy side of the Quas character is ignored, though he does pour liquid led on people. He is really only an outsider in that he looks different and enjoys playing with bells more than the average person.

Perhaps the film is intended for children, but I doubt it, considering Frollo flogs himself bloody to amend wanting to spank his monkey. A mostly uninteresting and forgettable, but not awful, and sometimes entertaining, rendition of the tale.


-=contains spoiler from both original and movie versions=-

i am a huge fan of Notre dame De Paris musical,i also read book this summer and i watched movie today,in the beginning i was hopeful to watch a good film especially when i saw 6.3 IMDb point.first scenes were good but i actually waited for,theaters scene directly from book,but it was normal but when Esmeralda kisses gringoire i felt something is wrong..they don't even kiss in book,even in musical..

and there were huge gap why Esmeralda being judged by sorcerer,in the book she teaches her goat how to respond numbers of clock or write word "phoebus".. wait there were a phoebus weren't there? in this movie he is some soldier junk nothing more,the creators made Quasimodo's love to show around and they even canceled Frollo's love..but Notre dame was frollo. his thoughts his struggles between love of god and love of human in movie we cant find anything like that all we have is,some villain who is really bad and kills people whose clashes with his thoughts..and not mentioning phoebus,not mentioning love of frollo,not mentioning jehan (brother of frollo) not mentioning mother of Esmeralda (maybe it is OK,the storyline would have chopped much)they even not mentioned the real story.. (another PS:frollo wasn't a opus dei or some cult member he actually in interest with alchemy he tries to make gold..he was stuck in science and religion)

finally don't watch this movie,it is some kind of directors edition to real masterpiece,and if you have watched it before read the book,god have mercy on you..you must read to book immediately..

this movie is worse than hunchback of Notre dame II the animated movie,spend your time with watching Notre dame De Paris musical.. enough said..


This is probably one of the worst movies I have ever seen. Jessica Simpson not only lacks any acting skill, but the script is incredibly shallow and lame. You actually hear serious dialogue that goes, "I love you more." "No, I love YOU more." I stopped watching the movie (online) after the first half hour, I couldn't take it anymore. Her "southern girl charm" just doesn't work and is really quite annoying; her attempts at slapstick humor fall flat and she delivers lines like she is reading the script right off the page.

Poor Luke Wilson. Did he not read the script before agreeing to do this, or did he fall for Papa Joe's (Jessica's dad and also the producer of the movie) promise of big profits? Hopefully he now knows better than to sign on to another movie like this. Luke Wilson is actually a good actor - I hate seeing the pained look on his face as he suffers through the bad dialogue.

Also, I think the previous commenter giving this movie an 8 out of 10 was probably either involved in the movie somehow or hired by Papa Joe to give the movie a better rating. No one in their right mind would actually find this movie engaging.

Jessica has lots of money, right? Maybe buy some acting lessons?


Who wrote this? Some guy named John Cohen. I guess this was the first screenplay he's ever worked on. Someone should've told him you're supposed to write dialog that sounds like something someone actually might say.

And who directed this? Scott Marshal? Son of Gerry Marshall. My the nut has fallen far from the tree. Someone might have wanted to let him know that you can, in fact, shoot a scene in a cab in New York, and it will look real, and you won't have to fake it with a blue screen for no reason. Might have also wanted to let him know he should stay away from Jessica Simpson, but hopefully he's learned that lesson now.

And Jessica Simpson... naturally she can't act. Hell, she makes Jessica Alba look like Audry Hepburn, and yet she's starring in this movie. OH wait, it was produced by her father. Okay, that's why she got the part. That's really the only reason I can think of.

So should I be surprised it's bad? No. Should I be amazed at how bad it is? I think a lot of people would if they saw as much of it as I did. I mean you expect a movie starring Jessica Simpson to be bad, but this... it's not just bad, it's the complete opposite of a classic film. Think of a great Woody Allen movie, this film is as bad as that film is good. It's the Anti-Annie Hall.

I am so glad I didn't pay to see it, I stopped watching ten minutes in cus I couldn't go on. No doubt I would've walked out of the theater sooner. In fact I wonder how many of the 6 people who saw it per theater actually stayed and watched the whole thing. The film starts out laughably bad, and then goes to the point of being so bad it becomes a kind of Chinese water torture. And then, around when the first act is ending, you realize it'll only get worse, and that's when you either need to leave, or kill yourself.

In conclusion, this film goes under the category of being so bad it should be used in place of water boarding at Guantanamo Bay. Although some prefer the water boarding.


This is an embarrassment to everyone and everything used in making this joke. I personally don't care one way or another about Jessica Simpson and her talent or whatever so many people find fascinating about her. Just as a movie this is something that wouldn't even get a passing grade in film school. The script is a mess, the acting is atrocious, and the fact Luke Wilson (co-writer of "Bottle Rocket") did this makes me wonder what the hell he was thinking. He did "Old School" for crying out loud! This doesn't even belong in the same state as my "Old School" DVD! Please for whatever reason DO NOT WATCH THIS! I see there is a comment that this is so bad it's good, but that frankly is too kind. When will we stop seeing singers that obviously can't act keep trying to, I hope ends soon. The worst part is that there are actually some decent actors (Penelope Ann Miller, Rachel Leigh Cook, & Luke Wilson) who are part of this dump. As far as the plot, well it is almost non-existent and so poorly done and written (yes I know it's another rehash) I very much doubt anyone will remember anything about this. Please whatever you do don't waste your time, but if you do, feel sorry for the ACTUAL actors involved for wasting their time doing this bomb. Jessica Simpson you're pretty, but stick to singing, although I'm not much a fan of that either. And whoever did this film, I wouldn't put this on your resume. 1/10 because you can't give a zero.


By now you should already know about this film, the Jessica Simpson "bomb" that pretty much went straight to video (limited, anemic theatrical run). Basically, Ms. Simpson's Katie travels from a small town in Oklahoma to visit her boyfriend, to surprise him, only to find him in bed with another woman. She is stranded, but has one friend (Rachel Leigh Cook, whom I wish we saw more often in film), who lets her stay. Katie ends up getting a job via two conniving co-workers (Penelope Ann Miller and the always amusing Andy Dick) who are just using Katie to get the president of the firm (Larry Miller) ousted. This is strictly a b movie, its not meant to be profound. Jessica Simpson is not a great actress by any means, but she is pretty much beautiful and never truly annoying. The film is watchable in that its not an abomination, but its throwaway fluff. In a cameo, Penny Marshall is funny (a subtle in-joke about Milwaukee made me chuckle), and there is a funny scene involving Norwegian priests (don't read too much into this). So, not horrible, but easy to skip. Your safe bet is to watch it on television if it ever does. Again, not good, but not a profound disaster.


This was a silly movie with a predictable storyline and dreadful acting!! Willy Nelson was as stiff as his braids. The movie just seemed like a very long advert for the bright red lipstick that Jessica Simpson wore - especially as there were so many close-ups on her face. The premise was not amusing and as I said - soooooooo predictable. Whatever money was spent on making this movie was a shameful waste. Any allusions to other old Marilyn Monroe movies did not enhance the viewing of Blonde Ambition at all. It was also so unbelievable - Jessica Simpson being able to step into an executive secretary position at the drop of a hat - that was laughable!!!


Watching this I mainly noticed the ad placements. DHL, Aquawhite Strips, Rockstar and more. It's one product placement after another. It's quite obvious how this movie got its funding. Jessica Simpson's "acting" is laughable. Any Dick shouldn't ever get work because he plays the same lame character. The "story" is just a backdrop for this very long commercial. I can't believe this movie was even considered for theatrical release. The longer you watch this movie the more you're embarrassed for everyone involved. The only minor saving grace is Larry Miller and Rachael Lee Cook, who gets almost no screen time as Jessica's cousin. I'm embarrassed I watched the whole thing. I would recommend avoiding this one.


This movie had all the elements to be a smart, sparkling comedy, but for some reason it took the dumbass route. Perhaps it didn't really know who its audience was: but it's hardly a man's movie given the cast and plot, yet is too slapstick and dumb-blonde to appeal fully to women.

If you have seen Legally Blonde and its sequel, then this is like the bewilderingly awful sequel. Great actors such as Luke Wilson should expect better material. Jessica Simpson could also have managed so much more. Rachael Leigh Cook and Penelope Anne Miller languish in supporting roles that are silly rather than amusing.

Many things in this movie were paint-by-numbers, the various uber-cliché montages, the last minute "misunderstanding", even the kids' party chaos. This just suggests lazy scriptwriting.

It should be possible to find this movie enjoyable if you don't take it seriously, but it's such a glaring could-do-better than you'll likely feel frustrated and increasingly disappointed as the scenes roll past.


The story goes something like this: A small-town girl, Katie (Jessica Simpson), decides to visit her boyfriend in the big city. When she arrives she discovers he isn't quite as faithful as he should be. Katie then ends up venturing into the adventure that is New York. Filling in as bike messenger comedic and charming mishaps ensues. She falls into a hole in the ground and thus meets charismatic good-guy Ben (Luke Wilson). It's not love at first sight, at least for her, but destiny and Ben, won't give up quite that easy. Being "just" a small-town girl AND blonde a couple of evil executives at a building firm decides she's the perfect scapegoat for their cunning plan. Misunderstandings with hilarious and sad consequences follow. However, this is one blonde who won't take it lying down!

People being judgmental of this film will soon enough be proved wrong. The jokes are confident and fitting, and the story well developed. The relationship between Katie and Ben feels so natural that it puts anything Godard has created to shame. The multi-talented Jessica Simpson once again surprises with a strong role only she could pull off. Simpson really is the Marilyn Monroe of our day (there's even one scene honoring her!). She balances perfectly between vulnerable and whimsy. Katie really does show us that you can't judge a book by its cover! Luke Wilson is as charming as ever. Even if he was covered in manure that man would be as appealing as anyone. His light touch, puppy dog eyes and laid back manner makes it difficult to resist. Andy Dick plays the role he was born to play, one of the two diabolical executives. He really cannot be underestimated. The strength of the performance lies in his restraint. It's remarkable, because most actors would just run away with it and play it for cheap laughs. Not this guy!

In conclusion, director Scott Marshall has crafted an intelligent and frequently hilarious comedy that is destined to become a classic alongside masterpieces of cinema like Epic Movie and Norbit. Kudos to everyone involved in this, especially Jessica Simpson. Her sincere smile and whole-hearted laughter would make even the toughest man break out in a big grin. You may be tough, but you're not THAT tough! Warmly recommended to everyone who wants to be swept off their feet and see a romantic comedy that for once, feels honest. Thank you for this film! Oh, and the soundtrack rocks!

Now if you still haven't gotten it. I'm being sarcastic. 1/10


This might be unbelievable, but this movie has grossed $878,138 in Russia! It's shown in almost all cinema theaters and still running! Well, I have no idea why distributors put their eye on this particular uh "movie", which had almost no screening around the world. That's some kind of enigma! Haha! Maybe it was based on the fact that another movie, "Pledge This" with Paris Hilton, which was as well released only DVD almost everywhere, had major screenings in Russia and grossed more than 1mln$. Besides, both movies had a lot of promotion, like there were the banners all over the city, TV commercials and etc. Speaking about movie, I'd say it's dull and absolutely boring. It could be better, really. Even if it has Jessica Simpson.


I knew this movie wasn't going to be amazing, but I thought I would give it a chance. I am a fan of Luke Wilson so I thought it had potential. Unfortunately, a lot of the movie's dialog was very fake sounding and cheesy. I think that Aquafresh gave some money towards the production of the film because they were seriously dropping some hints throughout. There is a shot where the Aquafresh sign sticks out at you that you can't help but notice it. Maybe they should have focused on writing and acting more than how many times can we drop Aquafresh products in the movie without people getting annoyed. The movie had its moments, but I'm glad I didn't spend $9.50 to see it in the theater.


(First of all, excuse my bad English) Of course only a movie starring Jessica Simpson can include serious goofs like this.. I'm a norwegian and I felt offended and shocked the makers of this movie did not take the time to do their research upon making this American/"Norwegian" movie. Even Wikipedia is more accurate when it comes to facts about this country.

So I'm posting my corrections out of my frustration: -The Country is named Norway, not Norwegia. -"Da" is Russian, not norwegian. -Norwegian priests never use those black capes with that white paper by the neck as the protestant church is the dominant by far -It's true we have a native traditional folk-outfit (that we only use like twice a year) but the outfit in this movie is more like a German outfit. -I could NOT understand the so called "norwegian" in this movie.. Jessica was not making any sense.. neighter did the "norwegian priests"

The only thing I recognise is the norwegian flag (and the viking hats, but that's so stereotypic what people think about norway - vikings!:O gosh)

Well.. I guess the people who made this film will never read this comment. but at least I cleared some things up and got rid of some of that frustration..!

I'm proud of my country and I'd love if people in the US were less stereotypic and more accurate when they talk about this country.

That was all.. Lenge leve Norge ! ;p


Ahh this film had so much potential! A good cast of quality B actors, the thighs of Jessica Simpson and... that is about it!

I believe some guy in some unnamed marketing department had an idea. Basically, lets do a kind of Legally Blond film, but do it in New York. That big bright city of chances, power and money and where everyone is a heartless, power/money hungry person. Let's add to this Jessica Simpson, small town bimbo, that brother of Owen Wilson and for some no apparent reason Andy Dick (only because of him you should ignore this film).

Basic story line:

Boy leaves girl for NY, girl follows, boy cheats, girl stays in NY with cousin, gets a job under false pretenses, mucks up, is courted by other boy (Brother Wilson) and together save the day and kiss.

a few words come to mind when reflecting upon this film, i.e. dire, awful, unbearable, intolerable and xenophobic

Just don't watch this film, you will be happier. One reviewer referred to Guantanamo and i definitely agree with him. This film induces shock. And I know what you are thinking... at least at some point will I see Simpson naked or close too. It's not gonna happen, spare yourself the time and YouTube her. You will have better sexy time!

The films editing is flimsy, the acting is unbearable, and why do they use blue screens?

In conclusion; this is cinematic treason which should be punished to the maximum

Another question why does Willie Nelson always play a kind of father figure in almost every Jessica Simpson flick and why are there no black, Latin, Asian or European people in this movie?


A lot of promise and nothing more. An all-star cast certainly by HK standards, but man oh man is this one a stinker. No story? That's okay, the action will make up for it like most HK action flicks. What? The action is terrible, corny, and sparse? Dragon Dynasty's releases up to this point are by and large superb and generally regarded as classics in Asian cinema. This is a blight. They managed to wrangle a couple of actors from Infernal Affairs, but they can't bring life to a disjointed script. There are scenes of dialogue where two or three lines are spoken with a cut in between each and no continuity in what the characters are saying. You almost feel like they're each giving a running monologue and just ignoring the other characters. Michael Biehn is made of wood, really? Sammo Hung uses a stunt double? No way. Yes way. Stay away.


At the end of "Dragon Heat," all I could think of was why I bothered sitting through the whole thing.

The film's premise is interesting and that - as well as Maggie Q - is what attracted me to the film in the first place. But was I ever disappointed. Writer-director Daniel Lee can't hold a candle to the likes of John Woo, Ringo Lam and Corey Yuen.

This has to be one of the most annoyingly-directed films I have ever seen. Lee is so wrapped up in his visual style - and I use that phrase incredibly loosely - that he fills the film with completely needless black-and-white stills, freeze frames, slow-motion, fast-motion and other visual nonsense. I suppose he did all that to make up for the lack of a good story or dialogue.

The action scenes are nothing special and play out like some hopped-up music video more than anything else. There is little to care about any of the characters - including two supposedly professional snipers who couldn't hit the broad side of a barn from the inside! - who are then laden with some of the cheesiest dialogue I have seen in one of these Hong Kong actioners.

The plot is devoid of any twists and turns - from the initial set-up, everything unfolds in predictable fashion - and Lee feels the need to keep reminding us of the characters' back stories in case we didn't get it the first several times. This is awfully amateurish writing and film-making and wastes the talents of Sammo Hung, Michael Biehn and Maggie Q. Though, to be frank, I am hard-pressed to remember Biehn being in any good film that was not directed by James Cameron.

If you really are in the mood for a great Hong Kong actioner, you are much better off sticking to some of the staples - John Woo's "The Killer" (1989) and "Hard-Boiled" (1992), Ringo Lam's "City on Fire" (1987) - which Quentin Tarantino stole for "Reservoir Dogs" (1992) - or his "Point Blank" (1967) remake, "Full Contact" (1992). Or, even check out Yuen's "So Close" (2002), a supremely entertaining, yet preposterous, popcorn flick. And there's always the terrific French police actioner, "The Nest" (2002).

True, most, if not all, are a bit over-the-top, but they were films that remain exciting, thrilling and even suspenseful. They have characters we care about and mind-blowing action sequences.

"Dragon Heat," on the other hand, is just terribly mediocre. The trouble is that Lee has not made a bad action film, he has made a dull one.


"Handsome Guys With Bad Haircuts !!" "Beautiful Girls Without Any Clues !!" "Stupid Gangsters Who Cannot Shoot Straight !!" From Dragon Dynasty comes the Hong Kong gangster drama, "Dragon Heat." For reasons which will probably forever be completely obscured, the production and casting call for this 'criminals-on-steroids' movie somehow got both Maggie Q and Michael Biehn to sign on as villains. But they don't get all that much to do in this horrid slug-fest.

They are two of the best contemporary actors around, each with their own resume' and list of accomplishments, and Biehn in particular has had the courage to take some rather challenging and non-heroic roles.

Maggie Q was the super-bad "Mai" in "Live Free Or Die Hard," so 'nuff said.

Biehn is, of course, famous for being the soldier-from-the-future who made "The Terminator" of 1984 such a believable science-fiction/fantasy romp, by crashing up against Big Arnold, who is now the Governator of California !!

Michael Biehn is almost wholly wasted in this terrible train-wreck of a police drama. There is absolutely no reason for that, as the incredibly convoluted plot -- given mostly in Chinese, as it is a Hong Kong story -- could have been better elaborated for non-Chinese audiences with a foreign narrator.

In other words, if Biehn had been used as something like an Interpol observer or coordinator, or an agent under deep cover, who needs to get some 'splaining given to him every five or ten minutes, that would have been great. But no, he's brought in as a part of an odd group of special forces-type bad guys who seem to be freelancing their own corrupt deal, in the middle of somebody else's totally corrupt deal involving the local king of corrupt deals.

Yes, there, I said it all. Confused ? Me too. "Welcome to the party, pal."

In the truly superb Hong Kong crime drama, known by its English title as "Breaking News," there are also a number of fascinating characters at work, but there is only one story line in the plot.

Bad guys vs. good cops. In this wretched and excessively violent foray into the world of a Hong Kong Triad, or gang, it seems that the hot-shot police force is little more than a parade of ducks in a shooting gallery, the way the criminals mow them down.

So, not surprisingly, there's an almost otherwise incomprehensible scene ( several scenes, in fact ), where kids are trying to shoot wooden ducks in an arcade game, to win stuffed animal prizes. And so the hot shot good-guy police officers quite naturally intervene on their behalf, so that the arcade owner has to give up the Kewpie dolls.

There's also a half-hearted attempt at creating a "love interest" between one of the 'visiting cops' and the sole female 'visiting cop'.

The visiting cops are supposed to be material witnesses against the Triad gangster leader, who gets hijacked on the way to his court appearance, but not by his own team but by the mercenaries ( Biehn, Maggie Q, and some others ). These killers all want something but we don't get to learn about what it is, until the very end of the film !! That was a stupid mistake inside of the overall story.

You cannot build suspense in a crime drama without something to obtain, or get, or get away from, being introduced very early in the story.

Add to that some "cut-away scenes" done for purely artsy effects, all showing the bad-bad guys' and the regular bad guys' recent pasts, and any film buff can readily understand why this barking dog gets a 1 rating from this fan of all things cinematic with criminals and conspirators and Hong Kong.