The Robin Cook novel "Coma" had already been turned into a pretty successful movie in 1978. A couple of years later it was the turn of another Robin Cook bestseller to get the big screen treatment , but in the case of "Sphinx" virtually everything that could go wrong does go wrong. This is a dreadful adventure flick consisting of wooden performances, stupid dialogue, unconvincing characters and leaden pacing. The only reason it escapes a 1-out-of-10 rating is that the Egyptian backdrop provides infinitely more fascination than the story itself. Hard to believe Franklin J. Schaffner (of "Patton" and "Planet Of The Apes") is the director behind this debacle.

Pretty Egyptologist Erica Baron (Lesley Anne-Down) is on a working vacation in Cairo when she stumbles across the shop of antiques dealer Abdu-Hamdi (John Gielgud). Hamdi befriends Erica and is impressed by her enthusiasm and knowledge. Consequently, he shows her a beautiful and incredibly rare statue of Pharoah Seti I that he is keeping secretly in his shop. The very existence of the statue arouses intense excitement in Erica, for it could provide vital clues in locating Seti I's long-lost tomb, a prize as great as the discovery of Tutankhamun's tomb in 1922. Before Hamdi can tell Erica any more he is brutally murdered in his shop, with Erica watching in silent terror as he meets his grisly end. Afraid yet tantalised by what she has seen, Erica attempts to track down the treasure. She finds herself helped and hindered in her quest by various other parties, none of whom are truly trustworthy. For one there is Yvon (Maurice Ronet), seemingly a friend but perhaps a man with sinister ulterior motives? Then there is Akmed Khazzan (Frank Langella), an Egyptian for whom Erica feels a certain attraction but who may also be hiding dangerous secrets from her.

The biggest problems with "Sphinx" generally result from its total disregard for plausibility. Down couldn't be less convincing as a female Egyptologist  one assumes she would be quite well-educated and resourceful, yet she spends the entire film screaming helplessly like some busty bimbo from a teen slasher flick. On those rare occasions that she actually isn't running from a potential villain, she does other brainless things such as taking Polaroid flash photos in a 4,000 year old tomb! The plot twists are heavy-handed to say the least, mainly comprising of revelations and double-crosses that can be predicted well in advance. One can't even try to enjoy the film on the level of dumb but entertaining action fare, because the pacing is awfully sluggish. What little action can be found is separated by long stretches of tedium. A famous review of the movie declared: "Sphinx stinks!" Never before has a 2-hour film been so aptly summed up in 2 words.


When this movie was released, it spawned one of the all-time great capsule movie reviews: Sphinx Stinks. It does, but in a mesmerizing sort of way. The casting is silly, starting at the top: Frank Langella and Sir John Gielgud as Egyptians? Not enough makeup in Cairo for that, at least not while this film was being made. But it's rather amusing to see them try. The performances run the gamut from mummy-like (sorry, the obvious observation) to over-the-top, with very few stops in between. The Lesley-Anne Down character seems as though she couldn't find Egypt on a map, much less expound upon its archaeological treasures. That's due at least in part to some really bad writing, one of the curses that will be visited upon every viewer of this movie. It's my opinion that movies involving a curse or that draw their basis from a subject that is somewhat esoteric, such as Egyptology, are ripe for silly, overwritten dialogue. It doesn't disappoint, and the convergence proves a double-whammy. The plot has one driving source of dramatic tension: Can this get dumber and less believable? The answer is, usually, YES. The location shots are beautiful, and the set design is generally very good, the only consistent reminders that this wasn't some low-budget production. That and the fact that there are so many well-known faces doing service in such an unintentional laugher. Cheap, no; cheesy, yes.


The most misogynistic movie of all time? Not to mention by '68 shouldn't they have moved beyond white people in brown face playing the "Indians"? My favorite parts though have to be when the girls giggle and blush as the bikers drag them off to gang rape them. Rape is fun! Who knew? Let's see, then there's the blatant rip-offs of "The Hustler" (fat boss character actually plays pool while scheming to destroy the Indians with the lead rebel dude), the horrific acting, the so-on-the-nose-they-might-as-well-have-just-told-you-what-to-think music cues, the lack of ANYONE WHO'S ACTUALLY Indian in this movie. And who are we supposed to be rooting for? I have to say it figures that Quentin Tarantino loves this movie. Even though his movies tend to champion strong women, I've heard from at least one source that in real life he's a misogynistic idiot. Why did I watch it, you ask? Don't ask.


The whole Biker Movie genre has to be made up of the worst films ever made. This one delivers a lot of fighting, generous amounts of blood, bikers fighting Indians, and a shanty town that gets blown up and torn down one shack at a time. The acting is beyond terrible. What ever happened to Robert Walker, Jr.? At one point he was in some major studio productions, and then he just faded away. This movie really blows, but if you have not seen a Biker movie in a long time, it is a good one to watch. At the end of the movie, you should feel a bit trashy for having watched it!


Irwin Allen was great. All of his TV shows had a great pilot, or first episode. the rest were basically rip offs of his other shows. A few episodes of Swiss Family Robinson were rip offs of his older TV shows. One episode of Swiss Family is identical to an episode of Land Of The Giants when a member of the party needs an appendix operation. The show was high budget and too expensive to continue. Irwin lost his touch with TV shows after the 60s. The acting is strong with Martin Milner. Child stars got there starts with this show like Willie Ames and Helen Hunt. one bright spot is when Irwin Allen incorporates his disaster scenes like a typhoon and a volcanic eruption dubbing him the " Master of Disaster "


Three Stooges - Have Rocket, Will Travel - 1959 This was the first feature length film to star the Stooges and it is pretty bad. It makes THE THREE STOOGES GO AROUND THE WORLD IN A DAZE (from 1963) look like a masterpiece.

The Stooges are janitors at a rocket place. They climb into a rocket and it goes to Venus. They meet some stuff there including a talking unicorn they call "Uni" which they bring back to Earth with them. "Uni" speaks like an average, pleasant person - 'Oh, hello. How are you? Lovely planet here. Hope you like it.' Hilarious.

Very few gags and so many of the scenes just go on and on and on.

The Stooges arrive back from space and the film is over as far as the story goes, but no one told that to the film makers for the picture continues for another 10 minutes or so at a party where nothing much happens. The Stooges leave the party and then the film is almost over.

High point of the film - the end where the Stooges sing a dapper little song about their journey. The Larry and Curly Joe hit Moe in the face with two pies. Brutal.

Another writer mentioned the fine musical score. Huh? The only music I even noticed were two classic tunes - I'LL TAKE ROMANCE and THERE GOES THAT SONG AGAIN, both of which are played at the party. And *that* really is the high point of the picture - music from old Columbia films.

The tall sexy blonde was nice.

Awful - a brand new VHS video from the 99 Cents Only store.


Few movies have dashed expectations and upset me as much as Fire has. The movie is pretentious garbage. It does not achieve anything at an artistic level. The only thing it managed to receive is a ban in India. If only it was because of the poor quality of film making rather than the topical controversy, the ban would have been more justifiable.

Now that I've got my distress out of my system, I am more able to analyse the movie:

* From the onset the movie feels unreal especially when the protagonists start conversing in English. The director, of course, did not make the movie for an Indian audience; however it underestimated its international audiences by over simplifying it. Watching the character of the domestic help conversing in perfect English is too unreal to be true.

* Next we get regular glimpses into Radha's dreams. These scenes are not very effective. They coming up as jarring and obstruct the flow of the movie. I'm still wondering how that philosophical dialogue connected to the story. I felt that the surrealism was lost.

* The love scenes felt voyeuristic and are probably meant for audience titillation rather than being a powerful statement. In any case, they do not achieve either of the two.

* The names chosen for the women, Radha and Sita, are names of Hindu deities and hence been selected to shock the audiences. However, since the film wasn't meant for Indian audiences in the first place, the shock-through-name-selection is not meant to achieve its goal, which is absurd.

* The quality of direction is very poor and some key and delicate scenes have been poorly handled. A better director could have made a powerful emotional drama out of the subject.

* The acting felt wooden although Nandita Das brought some life into the role, the others were wasted. I always thought that Shabana Azmi was a good actress but her talent is not evident in this film. The male leads were outright rubbish.

In case you are a fan of Earth and wish to see more of the director, stay away from this one. Please.


There's plenty to appreciate here: spectacular locations and flying sequences; period costumes, props and sets; and competent writing and acting. However, to enjoy a drama, we need at least one principal who exhibits some qualities that we can like or admire. In this bunch of catty snobs, we found only one character who is at all likable  a hapless enlisted man in a fleeting peripheral role as their helpless victim. From the reviews here, it is clear that we are completely out of step, but we did not find their malicious-schoolgirl behavior amusing or entertaining. Even the dog is detestable. We threw in the towel after two of the six episodes, so you should discount these observations accordingly, but what I could find written about this mini-series gave us no cause to expect character transformation or redemption.


I bought this DVD set, sight unseen, and wish I hadn't. The script needed some serious rewriting as it seems to be completely devoid of any feeling and pales in comparison to the book. The lighting is horrid, very unpolished, but if it was just that I could overlook it. The script doesn't focus enough on the characters...there is hardly an introduction to various characters making it a tad difficult to distinguish who is who(especially in the planes--no idea who dies when).

I have long felt that the key to a good film is in getting the audience to care about the characters; if you don't have that you don't have anything. There was no focus on the characters at all--you never got to know them--who they were, what they liked..what made them do the things that they do. The series is 5 hours long and split up into 6 parts...I bet you are wondering what they did with all this time if they didn't detail the characters---they put a lot of filler in it....I will say at least an entire hour is spent watching them land and take off in their planes LOL (I mean do we really need to see that over and over again???). I would have given this a much higher rating had they just improved our knowledge of the characters.


"Piece is Cake" is defeatist, revisionist history of the worst kind, whose only point is to unfairly savage the reputation of the (admittedly fictional) pilots it portrays. It left a remarkably bad taste in my mouth.

In the March 1989 "Aeroplane Monthly", Roland Beamont wrote a stinging condemnation of the way that RAF Fighter Command was portrayed in the TV mini-series. A few of his comments are worth repeating:

"There was no sense of defeatism at any time in any of the squadrons that I saw in action, and a total absence of the loutishness portrayed in 'Piece of Cake'. It would not have been tolerated for a moment... ...The prevailing atmosphere was more akin to that in a good rugby club, though with more discipline. Nor was there any sense of 'death or glory'. RAF training had insisted that we were there to defend this country, and now we were required to do it - no more and no less.

"There was no discussion of 'bravery' or 'cowardice'. People either had guts or they did not - but mostly they did. But we knew fear, recognised it in ourselves and in each other, did our damnedness to control it, and then got on with the job...

"...I could feel no 'glory', but there was a sense of greatness, and none of this bore the slightest resemblance to 'Piece of Cake'."

Beamont was, in his own words, "a fighter pilot who, unlike the author and producer of the recent TV series, was there at the time".

Beamont served with 87 Squadron both in France and the BoB, before going on to become one of the premier exponents of both the Typhoon and Tempest, and a post-war test pilot.

"Piece of Cake" is an absolute, total misrepresentation of the way pilots in Fighter Command acted at the time. It is nothing less than a complete and utter disgrace...


The trouble with the book, "Memoirs of a Geisha" is that it had Japanese surfaces but underneath the surfaces it was all an American man's way of thinking. Reading the book is like watching a magnificent ballet with great music, sets, and costumes yet performed by barnyard animals dressed in those costumesso far from Japanese ways of thinking were the characters.

The movie isn't about Japan or real geisha. It is a story about a few American men's mistaken ideas about Japan and geisha filtered through their own ignorance and misconceptions. So what is this movie if it isn't about Japan or geisha? Is it pure fantasy as so many people have said? Yes, but then why make it into an American fantasy?

There were so many missed opportunities. Imagine a culture where there are no puritanical hang-ups, no connotations of sin about sex. Sex is natural and normal. How is sex handled in this movie? Right. Like it was dirty. The closest thing to a sex scene in the movie has Sayuri wrinkling up her nose and grimacing with distaste for five seconds as if the man trying to mount her had dropped a handful of cockroaches on her crotch.

Does anyone actually enjoy sex in this movie? Nope. One character is said to be promiscuous but all we see is her pushing away her lover because it looks like she doesn't want to get caught doing something dirty. Such typical American puritanism has no place in a movie about Japanese geisha.

Did Sayuri enjoy her first ravishing by some old codger after her cherry was auctioned off? Nope. She lies there like a cold slab of meat on a chopping block. Of course she isn't supposed to enjoy it. And that is what I mean about this movie. Why couldn't they have given her something to enjoy? Why does all the sex have to be sinful and wrong?

Behind Mameha the Chairman was Sayuri's secret patron, and as such he was behind the auction of her virginity. He could have rigged the auction and won her himself. Nobu didn't even bid. So why did the Chairman let that old codger win her and, reeking of old-man stink, get his fingers all over her naked body? Would any woman ever really forgive a man for that?

Let's try to make sense of this. By being behind Mameha the Chairman incurred debts for Sayuri's geisha training. In order to recoup his debts the Chairman had Sayuri sold to Dr. Crab. Through Mameha the Chairman sold Sayuri's sexual favors to that old geezer so that the Chairman could make some money out of her. The Chairman wasn't her patron. He was her pimp! Some romantic love story.

Yes, the film is gorgeous but it is like the beauty of a very attractive, alluring transvestite whose voice, appearance and every touch are thrilling. But under that very feminine surface lies an ominous secret. Under the incorrectly appearing Japanese surface of the film lurks the ominous secret that the heart, soul, spirit and core of this film is entirely American and male. Not the best thing to be if it is trying to be other than a lie, distortion, and terribly wrong.

Some contrasts between Japan and MOAG:

Japanese style  Refined, elegant simplicity. MOAG style  Peking Opera.

Japanese geisha  Hair swept up. MOAG geisha  Loose hair which surely must have gotten all gunked up in the thick paste of white makeup.

Japanese shaved ice - Japanese are rather strict about seasonal observances. Shaved ice is strictly a summer treat. MOAG shaved ice - The Chairman buys Chiyo, the young Sayuri played by the marvelous Suzuka Ohgo, this treat during cherry-blossom-viewing season. The thought made my entire body shiver with cold.

Japanese geisha  Trained and skilled entertainers. MOAG geisha - sluts.

Japanese wind chime - Used in the summer because hearing the sound it makes, thanks to the breeze, Japanese people feel somehow cooler. MOAG wind chime - a door bell! If a person stood in front of another's house and made noises with a wind chime they would be considered a lunatic, not gain entrance.

Japan  Emphasis on human relationships, group oriented. MOAG  "I want a life that's mine" American individualism.

Japanese traditional dance  Refined elegance. An almost geometrical and mechanical precision. MOAG dance  Martha Graham freaking out on LSD while wearing a not-very-auspicious white Japanese funeral shroud. Performed by a geisha down a ramp in a place that looks like a strip club? Ha ha ha! Is a strip club where they did most of their research on geisha?

Japan house fire  Setting or even letting a fire break out is worse than murder because it poses such a dire threat to the community. Fires can rip through those wooden villages, towns, and cities destroying hundreds or thousands of homes and killing as many people. MOAG house fire - Great adjunct to a fight scene but there are zero ramifications and because it is no longer needed the out-of-control fire miraculously puts itself out. Technically the movie ended here because at the very least Sayuri would have been ostracized and joined her sister among those never heard from again. Which is where both Arthur Golden and Rob Marshall should be exiled.

Enough. The movie stinks.


Even though the book wasn't strictly accurate to the real situation it described it still carried a sense of Japan. I find it hard to believe that anyone who was involved in making this film had ever been to japan as it didn't feel Japanese in the slightest. Almost everything about it was terrible. I will admit the actors were generally quite good but couldn't stand a chance of saving it. Before the film started I was surprised that there were only ten people in the cinema on a Friday night shortly after the movie had opened in Japan. 30 minutes in I was amazed they stayed. I stayed so I would have the right to criticize it. The whole movie was punctuated my groans and suppressed laughs of disbelief from my Japanese girlfriend. Everyone I saw walking out of that cinema had looks of confusion and disappointment on their faces.

To the makers of this movie, you owe me two hours.


Having lived in Japan for several years this movie does not reflect the Japanese culture and does not even come close to explain what being a Geisha is all about. Unfortunately, a great opportunity has been missed to bring the Japanese culture a bit closer to the broad Western audience and help demystify the country where Zen, Samurai, the Geisha world of Kyoto originate from. Some of the most poignant moments of the movie are when the Americans are shown in Japanese surroundings.The Geisha dances were not authentic. There was far too much use of Chinese music. A minor but essential detail: proper use of the incense sticks was nowhere to be seen. The Sakura scenes were almost obscenely kitschy ! Interestingly, some of the Chinese actors were quite convincing as Japanese persons.


Rather then long dance sequences and close ups of the characters which made the film drag on - the movie would have been better served explaining the story and motivations of the characters.

The marginalisation of Nubo, the minister, auntie, mother - and the dumbing down of the dynamic and IMPORTANT rivalry between hatsumo and mameha and hatsumo and sayuri made the movie lack any real depth. If you hadn't read the book you would not really understand why Sayuri loved the Chairman and why Mameha became her mentor at all.

Visually the film was stunning - and the actors all did the best with the C rate script they were given, but that was all that was good about this movie.


I love Memoirs of a Geisha so I read the book twice; it is one of the best book I've read last year. I was looking forward to the movie and was afraid that reading the book would ruin the viewing pleasure of the movie. I wasn't expecting the movie to be that bad. Some of the best part of the book was omitted from the movie and the characters were weak with Hatsumomo (Li Gong)been the worst. If I haven't read the book, this movie would be a little confusing and inexplicable. The Plot Outline of the movie states "Nitta Sayuri reveals how she transcended her fishing..." Did anyone see how or when Sayuri became Nitta Sayuri? Forget the movie and read the book.


"Memoirs of a Geisha" is a visually stunning melodrama that seems more like a camp, drag queen satire than anything to do with real people.

The first half of the film defensively keeps insisting that geishas are neither prostitutes nor concubines, that they are the embodiment of traditional Japanese beauty. But other than one breathtaking dance, the rest of the movie degenerates into "Pretty Baby" in Storyville territory, or at least Vashti and Esther in the Purim story, as all the women's efforts at art and artifice are about entertaining much, much older, drunken boorish men. Maybe it is Japanese culture that is being prostituted, and not just to the American louts after World War II.

Perhaps it's the strain of speaking in English, but Ziyi Zhang shows barely little of the great flare she demonstrated in "House of Flying Daggers (Shi mian mai fu)" and "Hero (Ying xiong)." Michelle Yeoh occasionally gets to project a glimmer of her assured performance in "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon (Wo hu cang long)." Only Li Gong shows any real life. Otherwise, I kept picturing Charles Ludlam in various roles, or even Cillian Murphy, as in kabuki theater, particularly as the plot dragged down in cat fight after cat fight.

The supposed love story has zero chemistry, mostly due to the age differences, and I mostly felt sorry for Ken Watanabe and hoped his Hollywood pay check compensated for his loss of dignity as the mysterious "Chairman." I remember more emotion in "Portrait of Jennie" as the young girl is anxious to grow up into Jennifer Jones to please Joseph Cotton.

We see brief glimpses of reality when the geishas pose with regular women as photographic attractions, and as an ageless Ziyi Zhang lives out the war years in a very colorful kimono dying operation. The finale has little sense of normality.

The score includes many chopped up traditional melodies, with cello by Yo Yo Ma and violin by Yitzhack Pearlman instead of traditional instrumentation, that are beautiful to listen to in accompaniment to the lovely cinematography, as long as one completely ignores the plot and stiff acting.

As my mind wandered, I wondered how the great Japanese directors of samurai movies would have dealt with this story, which probably would have been more formal, but a lot more emotional.


Andrewjlau, I could not agree more. My girlfriend is watching this at this very moment, and I find this movie appalling. Quote from my Chinese girlfriend, laughing: "They are doing all this for a man!?"

I find these women have no intensity, no sense of the a fight between tragedy and identity, and that these men are hardly worth fighting for. During the dance scene where Zhang Zi Yi wins them over, the men look stupid more than admiring.

Japanese people have much more intensity than Chinese people, and being geisha is Japanese culture. I am sure the Chinese had something similar, but the faces do not match the main.

Anyway, the dialogue is so unmysterious, so American. Had a European done it with European orientals, they would have done a far better job.

I have to add: it seems most of the people who liked the film are American. Sorry to say, but no wonder. All spelt out for you, not instinctive, not passionate. I think the Chinese actresses are lovely, but I could not say they were good actors in this film. Yes, the cinematography is great, but really, I cannot see how it can be seen that these characters are complex, deep individuals.

I'm going to Japan to see the real thing. I am sure that would be amazing to see.


Despite an overall pleasing plot and expensive production one wonders how a director can make so many clumsy cultural mistakes. Where were the Japanese wardrobe and cultural consultants? Not on the payroll apparently.

A Japanese friend of mine actually laughed out loud at some of the cultural absurdities she watched unfold before her eyes. In a later conversation she said, "Imagine a Finnish director making a movie in Fnnish about the American Civil War using blond Swedish actors as union Army and Frenchmen as the Confederates. Worse imagine dressing the Scarlet O'Hara female lead in a period hoop skirt missing the hoop and sporting a 1950's hairdo. Maybe some people in Finland might not realize that the hoop skirt was "missing the hoop" or recognize the bizarre Jane Mansfield hair, but in Atlanta they would not believe their eyes or ears....and be laughing in the aisles...excellent story and photography be damned.

So...watching Memoirs of a Geisha was painful for anyone familiar with Japanese cultural nuances, actual geisha or Japanese dress, and that was the topic of the movie! Hollywood is amazing in its myopic view of film making. They frequently get the big money things right while letting the details that really polish a films refinement embarrassingly wrong. I thought "The Last Samurai" was the crowning achievement of how bad an otherwise good film on Japan could be. Memoirs of a Geisha is embarrassingly better and worse at the same time.


American film makers decided to make a film they think is Japanese. The characters all badly represented, the actors are not even Japanese and the set is cheap, unreal and definitely doesn't represent Kyoto in Early 20ties and 30ties. Who ever read the book understand that the script writers didn't add any extra value to differentiate the movie from the script. Worse, they even changed the original plot line with a few goofs. Rob Marshall is using for his two main characters two well known Chinese actors who joined before in crouching tiger hidden dragon. Marshall probably saw one Chinese movie and tho they represent Japanese culture. Seeing those two actors together again even makes the movies more ridiculous. Quentine Tarantino's last scene in Kill Bill #1 is ten times more Japanese made than that of this movie.


Memoirs of a Geisha is a beautifully filmed movie, there is no doubt about that. And the acting is generally excellent, at least in terms of how it portrays the characters as they are scripted.

However, so many details small and large are just _wrong_ that it just bothers me too much to be able to enjoy it fully. A small detail that typifies the kind of lack of sensitivity of sorts is one scene (no this does not spoil anything) where Mameha rings a bell that hangs at the door of the house where Sayuri lives, on a snowy winter day. The bell she's ringing is a fuurin, or wind chime - that is only left hanging outside of houses in Japan in the summer! People in traditional Japanese homes didn't have doorbells - they just opened the door and announced themselves. (You may think this is such a trivial detail, but I would equate this to a movie made about America where a Christmas wreath is hanging on the door in July and no one thinks anything of it.) And don't even get me started on the totally wrong hairstyles given to the maiko and geisha, which is vaguely pan-Asian/Chinese/kung-fu-ish, and nothing like real thing. I think this rather cavalier attitude towards the culture they are trying to portray really comes out in the attitudes and the portrayals of people and situations too.

So, I suppose that the less you know about Japanese culture and the world of the geisha and maiko in Kyoto (which is what "Miyako" is), then I suppose the more you will enjoy this. I honestly think this movie could have been so much better...as it is, it's just another Hollywood version of "exotic Japan".


A slow, tedious, and one dimensional movie! Good casting with clichéd dialogue, boring story line, and soulless direction from Mr Marshal! The conventional and predictable story of the most famous form of prostitution from the Asian continent, lacks heart, new insights, and depth. The lead character looks out of place due to her tiny phisique and phony looking contact lenses. The lexicon employed by the geishas sounds forced and a bit too sophisticated for their limited exposure in the ways of education. The story goes on and on for hours trying to convince you this little, boring, flat chested Asian girl is the ultimate Geisha, they actually say in the movie "She is destined to become a legend" i say hardy the case! The movie is just plain boring, it is beautiful to look at, it has a very few interesting moments as many as you may find by going out for cigarretes. Basically, if you don't believe the messenger you wont believe the message, and this girl didn't fill the shoe! Borin, boring, skip it!


I admired Rob Marshall for Chicago, but Memoirs of Geisha turns out to be yet another failure of combing western and Asian arts. Overall, the scene is beautiful, but after restless emphasis on exoticism-oriented scenes some might just find himself fed up with them. The excessive cherry blossom was, frankly, overdone. It's probably the cultural difference of perception here: the ultimate beauty is not the showy type, as truly beautiful geisha would not be the over westernised pumpkin in the movie.

Some other comments have rightly mentioned the biggest flaws. As a Taiwanese, I have no doubt the actress are great. An actor/actress can play any kind of role when he/she can look like it. Gong Li is great, but the power of emotions that she showed in this movie had not been translated into Japanese style. All I saw was a bittersweet and jealous Chinese WOMAN. Michlle Yeoh, one of my favourtie actress, did not even LOOK LIKE a Japanese. Some comment has mentioned the peculiar delicate, feminine characteristics of Japanese women, with which I can't agree more. These are so delicate that I assume not even all modern Japanese actresses are eligible for the roles in Geisha, let alone the two Chinese and one Malaysian actress who grew up in different cultures and probably did not know Japanese culture that much.

Geisha is a good shot for arousing the curiosity of American audiences. But it would be an insult for the movie itself and for art alike if the movie wins the Oscar for best costume, best director or best picture.


Another double noir on one disc from Warner Home Video and by far the better of the two movies is RKO's marvellous 1950 thriller "Where Danger Loves". This is a memorable classic with a great cast in Robert Mitchum, Faith Domergue and Claude Rains. Crisply photographed in Black & White by Nicholas Musuraca it was tightly directed by John Farrow. "Where Danger Lives" is a prime example of the noir style of picture making and will always be remembered for its stylish craftsmanship that was Hollywood's past - (See my full review).

Unfortunately, none of the above praise can be applied to the second movie on the disc, the abysmal MGM 1949 stinker TENSION! Poorly written (Allen Rivkin) and directed by John Berry this movie is full of ludicrous characterisations and unlikely situations. The inconceivable relationship between a mild mannered and wimpish pharmacist - blandly played by Richard Baseheart - and his overtly floozy wife (a risible Audrey Totter) is totally implausible and unconvincing (how on earth they ever got together in the first place is anybody's guess). Then when she "unsurprisingly" ditches him for one of her playmates (Lloyd Gough) our timid pharmacist, instead of being euphoric and over the moon with his new found good fortune, plots revenge and attempts to kill Gough but at the last minute chickens out. The guy gets murdered anyway and our pharmacist is immediately suspected by Homicide detective Barry Sullivan (another bland performance). So who did kill him? Well, at this stage of the movie you really couldn't care less since it is all so badly executed and rendered ridiculous by director Berry. Mr. Berry has no idea of pacing and is unable to inject even a smidgen of style into the thing. There is nothing he can put in front of the camera that will prevent you from nodding off! The only TENSION contained in this movie is in the rubber band that is stretched to its limit and snaps in the fingers of Barry Sullivan as he gives the intro at the film's opening. So much for that! A most unfortunate effort! C'est La Vie!

Best things about this turkey is the smooth Monochrome Cinematography by the great Harry Stradling, an effective score by a young Andre Previn and an early dramatic appearance by the lovely Cyd Charisse before she found her dancing shoes. Hey! - maybe she could have saved the picture had she given us a few steps and a couple of pirouettes! HUH?

In its favour however, are the heaps of extras that are included which boasts trailers, commentaries and featurettes for both films. But the disc is worth it alone for the RKO Mitchum classic!


True, the setting in Paris is great. The actors are fine. The story is a twisted morality play. Is it supposed to say that if you want someone badly enough, it's OK to hurt everyone else along the way? In a real romance, you sort of want less cliché than the man who has become bored with his wife and is willing to dump his family, and the woman who is OK with encouraging him to do this. So what if they are decent looking and if Karen Allen shows off her body? The characters are still self-absorbed and reprehensible. Maybe the moral of the story is "you get what you deserve". I give it a 4, only for the fast scan potential through the "male interest" bits.


This movie isn't terrible, really. Somebody commented that Mo is the type of American Europeans snicker at. But there are those, and not necessarily Anglo-Saxon yahoos, who do not care for Frenchmen; and the Xavier character isn't going to sway them.

Let's consider his stereotypical Frenchman attributes:

1). Cynical - very cynical. Check.

2). Reedy, underfed appearance, check, despite:

3). A great appreciation of cuisine. Check.

4). Lukewarm work ethic. Check. (Forget the fact he is supposedly a rich stockbroker, from watching him in the film he seems to put in ten hour workweeks.)

5). Beautiful wife, check. Despite that:

6). Loose interpretation of the marriage vows. Check.

7). Big sexual ego, which says an American girl owes you sex if you buy her dinner. Check.

Whether Mo is a hick or not, there's no reason for her to fall for this smug European twit other than the script dictates so.

On the other hand, as other male reviewers have, I did enjoy seeing Karen Allen's cute, petite body. I'll give the movie four stars; two of them are for that.


Any movie that has nude scenes of Karen Allen and I'm still so bored I walk out, that is a stinker!

Karen gets stuck in Paris, and befriends a sissily-handsome French man with whom she is having sex soon. Of course he's married, ("But, cheri, why should that be a problem?") What could be an interesting clash of cultures is (believe it or not) just dull. I walked out.

Maybe the movie got a lot better after I left; but it would have had to have gotten a LOT better to make up for a rotten beginning.

My advice, if you find yourself in this, run, do not walk, for the exit. Save your time and your energy. Most assuredly save your money. It's a shame the production company didn't save its money.


Watchable little semi-soaper, but hardly captivating. Still, two or three funny moments. What amazes me is how slippery and morally highly questionable McNicol is. She plays an invalid (a leg problem), yet she not only isn't the "ugly duckling" whom men shun, but she is even a man-eater - and we are supposed to feel for her! Oh, poor little McNicol, with her leg problem... Poor little McNicol??! She is constantly getting passes from men, and even dumps them without so much as blinking! At one occasion she even has a premeditated one-night affair with a blond stud, and then she tells her newly-found French girlfriend quite non-chalantly that it took him time to get an erection! Makes us viewers wonder why she is so leg-conscious if every guy wants to hump her. Well, almost every guy; the only guy who really shunned her after seeing her leg wrapped up in metal is the guy working on the telephone. But otherwise she seems to be doing just fine with men! No shyness, no lack of success with men, and she throws them away like toys; the way she dumped Carradine was ridiculous. Poor little invalid girl?? I don't think so. And yet we are meant to believe that this woman has a major confidence problem; hence the scene in which she prepares to start playing the flute for a solo concert and somehow manages to throw the notes on the ground out of nervousness. Nervousness?? The rest of the movie shows little or nothing that would suggest that she has confidence problems, so this flute scene is absurd and doesn't fit into the bigger picture. I was also surprised how quickly and eagerly McNicol makes friends with a French woman who is screwing a married guy. On the surface the movie would appear to be a "sentimental story of one crippled woman's struggle for acceptance" (or something like that) but it's nothing like that at all; the writer clearly shifts between this type of movie and a "screw anything that moves - it's the 80s" kind of movie - very confusing.

As far as her leg: it's not like she has a big, fat purple balloon growing on her calf muscle. She "only" has a normal-looking metal prosthetic attached to the lower part of her leg, so I really don't understand why the makers of the film try to make it seem as if she is a female Quasimodo or something, at the beginning of the film. It's not like she has a twin head growing out of her neck! Though McNicol is hardly a major catch. Kind of cutish but nothing special, quite average.

But what the hell is Carradine doing playing some kind of a (relatively) smooth guy flirting with McNicol and her pal?! This guy was in "Revenge of the Nerds"! But I guess it's the same thing with the Carradines in the movies as it is with the Kennedys in politics: no matter how ugly, unable, or dumb, all the doors are open for a career in movies and politics, respectively.

Down with nepotism.

If you want to read bogus biographies about the Carradines, and other Hollywood nepotists and morons, contact me by e-mail.


- I had planned to write something explaining what I didn't like about this movie, but this is going to be more difficult than I thought. Honestly, I can't remember much about it. I watched it just three days ago and it's made almost no impression on me. That's usually the sign of a real stinker. About the only thing I remember was being incredibly bored by most of it. The novelty of having a Humphrey Bogart look-a-like as the detective wore off real quick. It would be different if he could act, but he's a one-note entertainer. The kill scenes were amateurishly handled and there was no suspense leading up to them. If you can't spot the killer five minutes into the movie, you need to see more Euro horror. The casting is a dead giveaway to the killer's identity.


This movie is a cringe-fest of bad acting and poor set design as well as tacky lines and a lame plot. But it is so much fun to watch. Everything about it is hilarious.The basic plot is a group of scientists from the future travel back in time to capture their evil co-worker who is intent on destroying them all. They catch up with him in the year 1146. The 'futuristic' lab of the scientists from the year 2033 is an eighties-style room with a bunch of 'futuristic' flashing buttons and a time capsule that looks like a lawn shed. The actors deliver their lines with unenthusiastic aplomb, which isn't hard to understand considering that the lines are usually earth-shakers like " I double-checked everything twice!" He double checked everything twice? He checked it four times? Not only that, but they feed you the entire premise of the movie in the first five minutes, and continue at a rapid fire pace until they hit the medieval part. When Roger Corman ran out of money. And had to stop travelling through time and consequently different sets. The medieval set is a comic mish-mash of anything from the late 10th century to the 16th century. Any costume they could find, they used. I guess chain mail wasn't on the budget, 'cause the guys all wear sequined shirts masquerading as armor. The fight scenes are laughable, with men casually throwing themselves onto cardboard swords with abandon and dying in death throws with nary a blow cast.It sounds truly awful, but I enjoy it every time I watch it. The lines alone are enough to have you in fits and everything else pulls together to create a fabulous B-movie that, if you are a connoisseur of corny flicks, I would suggest you see. And once you have, read the review on Unknown Movies. I love hearing them point out all the funny, truly awful bits in the movie.


Spoilers of both this and The Matrix follow.

I liked the original Matrix a great deal. It was not a deep movie, despite Fishburne's attempts to philosophize, but it was fairly well paced, fun, and I have a soft spot for Hong Kong fights.

In the original, Neo was the secret life of the rather unhappy cube worker Anderson. By day, corporate drone, and by night, brave hacker. Eventually, he eventually is forced to choose between these lives by his actions - does he become an outlaw fighting the machine, or does he go back to the safe, forgettable world he started in. Interestingly, he discovers that once one is shorn of illusions, life rather sucks. He has his girl by his side and his boon companions, but he eats processed swill, dresses in sweats, and lives in a truly skungy bit of machinery. Still, the truth makes him free.

At least part of the fun of that first movie lay in the "what if it were me" questions raised in the viewer's mind. What if _I_ were capable of the impossible? What if I were "The One". It does not even matter that much what you are The One example of, with a cool title like that.

Further, agent Smith made a wonderful bad guy, as he embodied all of the fear of authority that we carry with us. He was as unstoppable as a terminator, and as merciless.

At the end of the Matrix, Neo must return to the Matrix to share his good news of freedom.

This movie fails to completely to carry through on the ideas of the original movie, and it does so with such lack of gusto, such poor scriptwriting and such poor editing that I cannot believe they had planned these changes. When the dialog is at a fifth grade level, with various long words dropped in randomly, I find it hard to believe that they understand what they are saying.

My short list of characterization failures:

The Oracle goes from mildly helpful, if deceitful to utterly obstructionist without any real reason.

Major "personalities" of the matrix are introduced without need - the keymaster, for example, was a cute idea, but just not that interesting a character.

Fishburne loses his "advisor" role, and gets nothing to replace it with.

The people of Zion are not particularly likable, nor would you really _want_ them running the world.

Special effects problems:

The fight scenes are pointless and intermitable. In The Matrix, you felt Neo could lose, and that he had to become something greater in order to survive. In The Matrix Reloaded, he is merely the viewpoint character of a particularly poorly plotted video game.

The fight on the freeway looked quite fake, and not that interesting.

Pacing problems.

As I mentioned above, the fight scenes were interminable.

The rave went on too long - everyone in my row at the theater was looking at their watch. Not because we mind good dancing and good orgies, but because we did not know about the people pictured, nor did we care.

Whatever hack wrote the creator's soliloquy should be blacklisted from the business. It meandered, used words that the scriptwriter clearly did not understand, and was a waste of time and a pacing killer. The creator's speech could have been done in a tenth the time, and with more peril as "Zion exists to give rebels a place to go so they do not destroy the Matrix. There are now too many people who do not believe; the matrix is in danger of crashing and killing every person hooked up to it. Further, the earth cannot support even the people in Zion, let alone these others. You may choose one person from Zion to form the new Zion, while I wipe the memories of the people currently in the Matrix."

Instead, we got a long, drawn out bunch of twaddle. If someone argues that it is deep, ask for a transcript, and try breaking down the sentences. Each one is too long by several clauses, and uses words with clearer, shorter synonyms.

So, in summary, not worth seeing.

I have seen the third one, and despite what a number of reviewers have said, skip it. It does not save this turkey.

The reviewers who feel that the second and third movies were "deep" should go see some truly deep movies. Perhaps read a book or two on rhetoric and debate, and perhaps a bit of philosophy. This movie is just not hard to understand, but it is hard to stomach.

Scott


***SPOILERS*** ***SPOILERS*** Continued...

From here on in the whole movie collapses in on itself. First we meet a rogue program with the indication we're gonna get ghosts and vampires and werewolves and the like. We get a guy with a retarded accent talking endless garbage, two 'ghosts' that serve no real purpose and have no character what-so-ever and a bunch of henchmen. Someone's told me they're vampires (straight out of Blade 2), but they're so undefined I didn't realise.

The funny accented guy with a ridiculous name suffers the same problem as the Oracle, only for far longer and far far worse. He has a simple point about cause and effect, makes it, then continues to make it and make it until it becomes convoluted and stupid. His final line before walking off is comparable to Storm's "do you know what happens to a toad..." line in X-men in levels of utter bland baddness. The chocolate cake is such a lazy, pathetic cliche and Monica Bellucci as the wife does nothing other than exactly what we expect the moment we see her.

And then we get another kung fu fight!!! WHY? Neo is, allegedly, The One. He can do anything. He has the ultimate power and what does he use it for. Kung bloody fu all the time. And while he can stop 1000 bullets, he still gets cut by a sword and still makes a meal of 5 undecipherable henchmen (vampires?). I wanted to see mind blowing powers. I wanted to see him do the wildest, craziest most insane s*** to people because he can do anything. I got the same as before without the 'wow'.

The fabled car chase. That can't be bad. Well... no, it's not. It's just not what we've been tyold it was going to be. ALL the cool shots from this scene are in the trailer. Every one. So all possibly Wow has been taken from us so all we now get is a good chase sequence with, guess what, a kung fu fight!!! OK, it's not Neo, but you'd have thought he'd have explained to his closest friends about the reality of the Matrix. At least taught them something. It's not hard.

"Hey, Morpheus, don't worry about what happens to you in the matrix. It's not real. As long as you understand that nothing's real then nothing can really harm you."

There you go. Simple.

OK, so the chase is not bad. It's never boring and it doesn't seem like 16 minutes. It's just so underwhelming. And still, it gets worse.

The final climax to the movie is quite probably the worst imaginable. They have this whole elaborate plan that involves three crews. They then only show it sporadically between Morpheus's over long, super preachy, monologue. To make it worse, they never clearly define what this plan that needs 3 teams is. You know basically, but you don't know who's doing what, when, so when one crew goes down you just don't care and you don't know how this is going to affect what goes on.

I'll sum it up though, it happens so Trinity can get back into the Matrix to setup the end. That's the only reason it happens. Which raises the question, why did they need to send 6 people originally? Trinity gets in in five minutes by herself!

Neo's journey to the centre of the Matrix (so to speak) is handled equally lazily. Ooohhh!!! He runs into another 100 Agent Smiths!!! Woooooo!!! That must've taken a lot of thought. Only now they're in a corridor so the fight has no scale and is over in a moment. Man, what a grand finale!!!

And then the Architect!!!

Remember everything I said was bad about the Oracle and the foreign guy? Add them together and double it, that's how truly appalling the Architect is. The only reasonable potential of him is he's about to set up the cliffhanging climax.

And then he blows it!

Let's look at the options he gives Neo. Choose one door and all humanity dies (except 27!!!). Choose the other and all humanity dies!!! Considering choice is something this film tries to explore it doesn't really give it's hero one. If he had a choice of Save humanity and the missus dies or Save the missus and kill humanity there's the potnetial for inner torment and tension. Also, with Trinity being mid fall, the potential of a real cliffhanger that would've made seeing the third more essential. But no. He has save no-one or save the missus.

Now, the very worst thing about the original Matrix was Neo dying and then coming back to life right at the end. The year it came out everyone was so annoyed by how stupid Jar Jar was they didn't notice that the very end of The Matrix made him look him Steven Hawking. "The Oracle told me I'd fall in love with the One, and I love you".... Come On!!!! How can the whole world have missed how utterly terrible that was?

So, what do the Wachowski's do in the sequel? Well, they make the ending of the original look better. How? Well, by doing almost exactly the same thing again (only swapping characters) only so much worse I think my f a and r keys would be worn out if I kept writing far before I got to worse.

And the cliffhanger is just not really a cliffhanger. It's a reminder.

Basically, this film is just bad. I really didn't want it to be bad, but it is. Bad in just so many ways. And to make matters worse, this isn't a film with not enough budget. It's not a film with too short a schedule. It's not a film that's been rushed out. It's not a film where too much influence has come from the outside. This is exactly the film the Wachowski's set out to make with Warner's fortune fully behind them. And that's what makes this so awful. At least Rancid Aluminium can say that it didn't haev enough time or money.

Matrix Reloaded. The worst film ever made? Maybe not quite. The most disappointing and defalting film ever made.

Undeniably.


I tried to remove anything that might be considered a spoiler. I also assume that you've seen the first movie or at least know the general gist, so if you haven't some of this might not make sense.

Plot: This movie beats the audience over the head with tired philosophical ramblings again and again in an attempt to get the theme across. We are bombarded again and again by questions of purpose, and destiny, and choice, and forced to endure the long, torturous platitude sessions that contain them.

Neo, awakened from a dream in the last movie, now begins a period of realization about his own existence. There are a lot of revelations in this movie, which I'll be vague about so they won't seem like spoilers.

*If you're still worried vague references will spoil the movie, don't read the paragraph below.*

The strength and weakness of faith is revealed. The strengths and weaknesses of love, and its temporary nature, are also revealed. The interdependence of humans and technology, and our faith in technology, are also revealed. The importance of choice and experience is revealed. Explaining further things that are revealed would go into too much detail, so I will refrain (as the guidelines for writing a commentary asks). Btw, by "revealed" I mean pounded through our ears and eyes like nails.

Storyline: So how does Neo and the gang get from the end of the last movie to the beginning of the next one? In short, they keep the faith, and use and abuse overly-stylized action and bullet-time like it's going out of style (and after this display, I'm hoping movie-goers and makers alike learn to appreciate subtlety and originality a bit more). More on that later. To not spoil anything, I will say no more than the promo material already did: Neo is still trying to figure out the Matrix, and he is looking for answers while trying to save the humans, and Zion, all while baddies are going after him and his cohorts. The movie pretty much picks up where the last one left off.

Action: While martial arts action and gunplay peppered its predecessor in somewhat equal parts, this movie focuses much more on martial arts than gunplay, adding swords, sais, etc. to the mix. Special effects are so often used and waved in the audience's face that it becomes really tiresome. I've discussed this movie with friends and coworkers alike, and nearly all of them found some of the action sequences--especially the "Smith fight" we all heard would be in the movie--to be too long and tedious. This is a huge red flag for action fans, because the end of an action sequence should either leave you wanting a slight bit more, or completely content with the awesomeness that just occured.

These fights scenes do neither. They are over-stylized, over-the-top sequences that are wooden and uninspired. In the first movie, there was a real sense of desperation to some of the action, a sense that fighting was for survival, not just looking good (which I honestly don't think they manage in Reloaded anyway) in black and leather. Go watch Drunken Master or Iron Monkey after this movie to remind yourself of what good fighting sequences are--you won't regret it. In addition, the "Matrix abilities" people have in Reloaded is not consistent, and what they actually do is not consistent. The first movie had its inconsistencies here, but they weren't too glaring--unlike Reloaded.

Special effects are poured on and on and on. Every little thing someone does, be it just jump, somersault, spin, and in many cases just pose, are

slow-moed, bullet-timed, or over-accentuated by some sort of destruction. It's evident the W Bros had a ton of money to throw at this movie, and boy did they throw it, with no real restraint. Sharp editors could have really helped this, but the first movie was such a hit that free reign was obviously given, which brings us to. . .

Character and dialogue: I have already more or less said the dialogue was tired and full of philosophical platitudes. Actors can't really bring a lot of depth to their character when the script and direction is shoving character progression audience's face, or neglecting it altogether. The audience is at no time given nuance and substance so they can contemplate the character on their own.

Keanu's acting performance is stiff at best. Keanu is good at acting confused, and that's about all he does in this film. He makes a decent attempt to show passion between Neo and Trinity, but it falls flat.

Lawrence tries to make Morpheus everything from Moses to Henry V, and be as cool as a cat throughout. With the script he is provided, he makes a noble attempt, but it also falls flat.

Moss isn't very believable either. Her look of concern is always the same, much like Keanu's, and the chemistry isn't there, although in their very physical scenes they fake it well enough.

Hugo once again brought his weird sense of being an Agent program, but he too suffered from the script's hand. I actually find him to be the most interesting character of the bunch, but instead of development they just make him an excuse for a huge, drawn out fight scene.

All in all, this movie is beyond disappointing if you had good expectations, and on its own, as a stand-alone movie (which is not how it's supposed to be taken), it's still horrible. I don't see The Matrix as deep, but I at least see it as an enjoyable scifi romp that has some interesting ideas, good action, a few funny lines, and enough restrained symbolism and elusions to amuse the attentive. Reloaded fails on all these counts, and I really hope the W Bros will give us a better experience in the 3rd installment. Granted, I don't have a lot of hope left for that after this film.


The first Matrix movie was lush with incredible character development, witty dialog, and action scenes that kept with the flow of the story. These elements -- coupled by incredible special effects of the day -- presented a magical ride that kept you in suspense the entire time. Enter Matrix Reloaded (and its sequel, Revolutions). The problem here isn't the special effects or the fight sequences as some may argue; The brothers have taken well-developed characters from the first film and hollowed them out like rotten tree logs. The connection that was first established between viewers and on-screen characters in the first film is lost when you realize these are not the same characters from the first Matrix movie.

To wit, Morpheus was developed as a charismatic, philosophical character with insight far exceeding anyone else in the movie, but here in Reloaded -- we're presented by a different Morpheus who stands hard and hollow, reduced to corny one-liners that contradict the character we saw develop in the first film. This character just didn't feel the same, and this could also be said about the supporting characters in the movie.

The removal of 'Tank' was also a disappointment. Tank's involvement in the first film was minimal at best, but he played the role extremely well. In Reloaded, we discover that Tank dies after the events in the first film, and he is replaced by a Jar Jar Binks stunt double that couldn't act to save his live (think stale box of Kellogg's Corn Flakes). His performance left me chuckling throughout, and most of his spoken dialog lacked timing. There was an overwhelming sense that he was either trying too hard to convey his emotions on-screen or the delivery in the script was off; in either case, the experience was humorous! At times I felt embarrassed for the actor....

Even Neo's Godly persona was suspect during most of the fighting sequences. The alleyway battle with the 200 Agent Smith clones was certainly exaggerated. One must wonder, for a man so gifted as Neo -- that he would even waste his time engaging in such a fruitless, frivolous battle when more pressing matters attend (especially when you consider his ability to fly or his ungodly ability to bend the Matrix; certainly Neo could have dispatched the clones much quicker, and more efficiently). Again, such acts lend themselves to a script hindered by consistency, and scenes created as filler to keep us from feeling gypped. In jest, our expectations of the characters created in the first film are discarded promptly. Sadly, for those expecting more of the same -- you will certainly walk away feeling gravely disappointed.

However, if you take Reloaded as your standard, run-of-the-mill action movie, and forget the incredible story inconsistencies and the untwining of already-established character development from the first film, you should walk away feeling quite pleased.


1/10 and that's only because I don't go lower with my ratings.

skip this "movie" and wait for the last movie of the "Trilogy", don't buy or rent it. trust me you won't be missing a thing. the Architect brings no new info: _(spoiler)_ there have been more NEO's before him, he's like nr.6 or something. you could already figure something like that out from the first movie: Agent Smith telling us the first Matrix created didn't work because it was too perfect. Trinity died and Neo's "love" brought her back, where have I seen this before ? Oh right in the first movie the roles where reversed ! same as the action-scenes nothing new just with more opponents. the Action-scene (the 20+ ships) in the BIG battle which we didn't see (maybe in Revolutions ?), betrayed by someone (hmmmm, maybe the guy holding the knife who wanted to stab Neo?!) who pushed the EGM-button to soon.

all in all a shameless ploy to make money (especially off the guys who went to see it more then once), which evidently worked like a charm.


Man would expect that a movie shot with an approx. budget of 300,000,000 U$D should at least entertain you for the time you are spending in the cinema actally watching it. "Matrix Reloaded" proves this assumption wrong.

"The Matrix" worked out better, despite having apparent holes concerning logic of the story. At least nobody could explain to me why beating up a bot (aka agent) inside a simulation (aka martix) would harm the responsible computer program in any way...

Unfortunately, the Wachowski brothers made excactly this "agent-bashing" the main thing in "Matrix Reloaded": it's a beat 'em up o-rama. This fighting scenes may be work out sufficient (or even cool) in a 5 sec. trailer, but prolonged for several minutes, apparently being faked, choreographed poorly and repeated over and over again it is nothing more than boring. Despite seeing the promised spectecular stunts there is nothing more than simple low-quality, unimaginative bashing already seen (or better not) in eg. Van Damme 'movies'. The difference of post-production (etherything is 5 times faster, the camera floats around a lot and freezes on certain scenes, and this is repeated for at least 5min) doesn't help here, all this has nothing to do with the very meaning of "martial arts". Beside these 'fights', all actors do refuse to do what they are payed for: acting.

What's up besides the fighting scenes? Few except Hollywood routine. This oh-so-multicultural bunch of hippies which sucked in "Waterworld" are recycled as citizen of "Zion" (mans last city on earth), and on the order of Morpheus they start dancing, 'cause this is a good opportunity to show a lot of barely covered tits and butts. The oh-so-popular clichée of the frog aka frenchmen talking with this "je ne sais quoi" dumb accent, who wastes his fortune because of a "liason d'amour" is bravely served. Following this (and unwanted funny) is the fight between Neo and the sinister followers of 'the frog', since it takes place in an Erroy Flynn like enterieur, luckily featuring a lot of mideaval weapons for decoration. For Neo posing with the hellebarde, just add 2 stairs and a lot of statues (for being destructed, thrown over evil guys and the like) and you get 5 more senseless, boring min. of this junk.

Whats left to expect? The usual merchandising hell. And "revolutions" which will happen or not - certainly without me.


`The Matrix' was an exciting summer blockbuster that was visually fantastic but also curiously thought provoking in its `Twilight Zone'-ish manner. The general rule applies here- and this sequel doesn't match up to its predecessor. Worse than that, it doesn't even compare with it.

`Reloaded' explodes onto the screen in the most un-professional fashion. In the opening few seconds the first impression is a generally good one as Trinity is shot in a dream. Immediately after that, the film nose-dives. After a disastrous first 45 minutes, it gradually gains momentum when they enter the Matrix and the Agent Smith battle takes place. But it loses itself all speed when it reaches the 14-minute car chase sequence and gets even worse at the big groan-worthy twist at the end. Worst of all is the overlong `Zion Rave' scene. Not only does it have absolutely nothing to do with the plot, but it's also a pathetic excuse for porn and depressive dance music.<br /><br />The bullet-time aspect of `The Matrix' was a good addition, but in `'Reloaded' they overuse to make it seem boring. In the first one there were interesting plot turns, but here it is too linear to be remotely interesting. The movie is basically, just a series of stylish diversions that prevent us from realising just how empty it really is. It works on the incorrect principle that bigger is better. It appears that `The Matrix' franchise has quickly descended into the special effects drenched misfire that other franchises such as the `Star Wars' saga have.

The acting standard is poor for the most part. The best character of course goes to Hugo Weaving's `Agent Smith'- the only one to be slightly interesting. Keanu Reeves is the definitive Neo, but in all the special effects, there is little room to make much of an impact. Academy Award Nominee Laurence Fishburne is reduced to a monotonous mentor with poor dialogue. Carrie Ann Moss' part as the action chick could have been done much better by any other actress.

A poor, thrown-together movie, `The Matrix Reloaded' is a disappointment. Those who didn't like the first one are unlikely to flock to it. This one's for die-hard fans only. Even in the movie's own sub-genre of special effect bonanzas (Minority Report, The Matrix etc.) this is still rather poor. My IMDb rating: 4.5/10.


I felt asleep, watching it!!! (and I had tickets for the midnight- premiere) Any questions? The most disturbing scene, as far as I can remember, was the techno-dance-i-dont-know-what-that-was-scene. By the way what an ending!?


As a fan of Science-fiction movies, I have been aware of The Matrix since its release in 1999. From the little bit I would allow people to tell me about it, I assumed it was highly original and sophisticated. I am also a devotee of Alice in Wonderland. I could never quite figure out how I missed The Matrix when it was released. With the imminent release of The Matrix Reloaded, it was time to buy the DVD and watch it.

The disappointment was too great. The premise of the matrix (the controlling device as opposed to the movie) was clever. The philosophical premise of parallel worlds, alternate realities is shopworn. However, I could still have bought into the film, as science-fiction, if it stayed firmly in that genre. Unfortunately, it turned into a standard, "will they or won't they escape, break through, rescue those in need of rescue, etc." To make matters worse, it turned out to be another martial arts exercise. The problem is that science-fiction and martial arts films are really two different types. To the purest, the devotee of one or the other, mixing the two doesn't work. It is like mixing science-fiction with romance. You can have one or the other, but not both in the same film, or, at least, not both to the same extent in the same movie.

If there were such problems with The Matrix, The Matrix Reloaded really compounded the problems. At least thirty minutes of the film were either martial arts sequences or the protracted car-chase. (This observation ignores the question, made in every professional, negative review of the movie: If Neo could do the Superman thing, why bother to fight at all? The answer, of course, is that's what draws the young, male demographic group into the theatre.) Then there is the "redemption through love" aspect. That plot device was worn out by Richard Wagner over a hundred years ago. It was actually handled better by him in Die Gotterdammerung.

So where does that leave those who saw the Matrix Reloaded. Martial arts fans probably groaned through the trite, but arcane sci-fi philosophizing. Science fictions fans were wondering why they were sitting through a kung-fun fest. Most of the males in the audience where probably bored by the silly romance aspect of the film.

Just what are you supposed to be getting for your bucks when you see The Matrix franchise films: Science fiction, martial arts, or soap opera? A bit of each does not make for a whole lot more of any of them, nor for a satisfying film for the afficionados of each.


What the hell was all that about? I saw The Matrix and was amazed. It was the most spectacular movie ever made. What ever possesed the Wachowski brothers to do this film is beyond me.

There is no plot, you can't argue with that. Basically all this film was was a load of talking, and don't get me wrong, I have no problem with talky films, but all the talking in The Matrix Reloaded was a pointless load of drivvle. Then there would be a fight sequence which lasted WAY too long, then more pointless drivvle, then another fight scene that lasts too long and it all builds up to the biggest anti-climax ever. A little bearded bloke talking a load of uncomprehensible bull for 20 minutes.

Also, Keanu Reeves gives his worst performance yet. I knew he wasn't a good actor but this was beyond a joke. If you watch his films in the order he was in them it would seem he got gradually worse as they went along. God knows what his performance is like in Something's Gotta Give! Keanu Reeves: The only plank of wood ever to become an actor.

After the splendor of the first film this came as a massive dissapointment. If you haven't already seen the first film I suggest you watch it, but don't waste your time with this utter pile of turd.


It seems as if in Science Fiction you have this periodic throwback to perform an odd phenomenon that appears in long serial novels. It's where the first novel (Dune, Ender's Game) blows you away with an actionpacked revolutionary story. The sequels however take that universe and lead you down the garden path to whatever new little social or political commentary the author wants to make. The Matrix is finally the film equivalent. The Matrix stands tall, alone, as an interesting film with an odd twist in the middle. Seeing this cash cow just sitting there, and wanting to explore other aspects of society, the writers and directors then lead you through what has to be some of the most painful monologues and non-action sequences in SciFi. While the visuals remain as stunning from the first movies, the new explorations of the characters falls terrible flat in the sequel. Watch for eye candy, not for deep thought.

4 out of 10, as registered by this fine website.


As soon as I began to see posters and hear talk about this movie, I was immediately excited. The Matrix was an incredible to behold and I couldn't wait to see the second one, especially after beginning to see the trailers for it at other movies. However, when I saw it, I left the theater extremely disappointed, as did many other movie-goers at the theater with me. While the action scenes in the movie were amazing as always, there simply were too few of them. In the first movie, there was constant fighting going on it seemed, but the second took a much more (and much unfortunate) preachy point of view. To sum up the plot, there wasn't much to it that wasn't expected. The machines were digging toward Zion with intent of destroying it (that's not a spoiler, everyone saw it in the commercials). The dialogue of the movie was absolutely horrendous. Unless you're a psychology major, you most likely will not understand most of what is said in the movie, and because of that simply won't care. It became somewhat of a romantic movie with the showing of events happening in the lives and relationship of Neo and Trinity. Agent Smith, for as bad-ass as he was in the first movie, seemed to get all religious and preachy. Personally, I don't need to hear about that or pay money to listen to it. The movie was a serious waste of my time, and I don't think I can watch the first one anymore. The dialogue and the constant boring and dry monologues from basically every character made me lose interest in the film quickly, and the small amount of good fighting scenes pushed me nearer the edge, and the ending of the movie shoved me right off. What movie ends with "To Be Concluded"? How original is that folks. I wonder if the Wachowski brothers had to burn the midnight oil to come up with that one. In conclusion, the movie was bad and that's the end of it.


I'll admit that I liked the first one, and was really looking forward to the sequel.

I was let down. Sure the special effects were technically amazing -- but they weren't believable looking. It looked more like a cartoon. Alright, I admit to liking 80% of the chase scene -- but the fight with all the Mr Smiths? It was too obviously animated.

I can accept all of that. What I can't accept is that the non-action parts were crap. Every time Morpheus opened his mouth, I knew I was in for a speech that went on forever and signified nothing.

I was also disappointed with the little plot that did exist. What this movie did was tell us that there was no truth in the first movie (except about the existence of the matrix). This movie was a little like seeing the episode of DALLAS where you find out that the entire previous season was a dream.

Ugh! I want my $7.00 back!


A perfect little atrocity...I doubt if a single shot lasted for more then the reglamentary-MTV 4.4 seconds. Woeful casting, worse even than in Kusminsky's version (a reminder: he managed to miscast Juliet Binoche and Ralph Feinnnes). But, hey-the rich got what they deserved. Dark and brooding Heathcliff reduced to the state of a golden-locked angel, frail and angellic Catherine presented as a chubby, melon-breasted heffer, meek and weak Linton is a peeping tom, and innocent Isabel becomes Sara Michelle-Gellar's character from Cruel Intentions. 15-year old Eddie Bauer and Abercrombie and Fitch donners-take notice. This thing was made for you. It is an hour-and-a-half long music video where everything is given to you; you are saved from the uncomfortable necessity of not even trying to understand the complexity of the characters, but even from initial shock at their actions. The actors tried, but, as I stated before, they were miscasted. Decent photography, but editing is on the level of TV production class in high school. I implore you all: read the book, or the cliffnotes even; watch the previous versions of it, even Kusminsky's; but stay away from the numerous future reruns, during which you will not receive the benefit of the commercial-free premiere.


I was skeptical when I first saw the Calvin Kline-esque commercials, but thought I'd give it a chance. So I've watched it, and all I can say is bleh. This movie was so bad. It's rare that I hate a movie this much. Watching this flick reminded me of those funny scenes in Altman's "The Player," when the writers pitch their bizarre ideas to producers. I'd like to know which MTV producer decided that an hour and a half long music video adaptation of Bronte (but this time Heathcliff's name is Heath and he's a rock star, and Hindley's name is Hendrix) would be a good idea.

Even that might not have been so bad, had they not gotten every other aspect of the film so horrible wrong as well. The direction must have been "you're lonely, pout for me." I laughed out loud during all the "serious" scenes and was bored throughout the rest. The camera work was jagged and repeatedly reminded me that I was watching a bad movie trying to be edgy. My theory is that the sound guy got bored and went down to the beach for a few beers with his boom -- all I could hear in half the scenes were the waves. And in the other scenes, I wish that's all I could hear. And speaking of sound, what they did to the Sisters of Mercy song "More" is absolutely inexcusable, then again, it's inexcusable what they did to Bronte.

On the bright side, there was one entertaining scene -- specifically the moment when Johnny Whitworth licked Katherine Heigl's face -- and if you can tell me what that scene had to do with all the rest of the story more power to you.


Let me start off by saying that I didn't watch this movie at first with high expectations. It was recommended to me by a friend with mediocre taste in movies, and "MTV" was pasted on the front cover so I was not expecting much. What i was expecting was a tear-jerker, overly dramatic but at least effective.

I was wrong.

Firstly, let me start off that I had never read the book nor watched any other versions of the movie.

The acting was my main gripe with the film. By god is it AWFUL. The main girl is pretty mediocre, but when compared to the rest of the cast she's Maryl Streep. The main "Hero", Heath, is just plain awful. He can sing decent sounding clichéd songs, but that's about it. His acting broke the 'sad' moments by being so bad at points that I just burst into laughter. The Isabel girl was pretty godawful too, and the brother was just a flat character that was played by an actor that couldn't display emotion whatsoever. And when he tried to, it failed miserably. Neil Patrick Harris was the only decent actor, playing Edward, although it's obvious the direction was bad because even he did not live up to what I've seen him do. Oh, and the father wasn't half-bad to my memory, but he was in the movie for such a small amount of time I can hardly remember.

The story itself was not very good. More breakups than you can imagine. Predictable story (Until the ending, which I barely understood). EXTREMELY one-sided characters with no real depth to them... Overall just not interesting or compelling, nothing we've never seen before done MUCH better, and nothing worth watching here.

The ending is suppose to be a tearjerker. It did nothing of the sort. The ending isn't built up at all, it almost feels like an afterthought. In fact, I had to ask my friends WHY the ending actually happened, which when they explained it to me I must have had a look on my face of "Wait, when did they say that? What?". Never a good sign. The editing was probably the worst I've seen, though I do understand the fade-ins-fade-outs are done because this was originally made for TV, but that's really no excuse.

Overall, the movie is just garbage. I'm a sensitive guy, I cried during two episodes of the Simpsons. I never cried during this crap, not even close. Really, this movie is not worth your time. If you really want to see a tearjerker look elsewhere.


There's no denying the first Azumi film was a commercial product; it was an adaptation of a popular manga and had cast of young, attractive actors and certainly wasn't lacking in the budget department. Yet it more than entertained for what it was, and I can't deny I enjoyed it immensely.

"Azumi 2" lacks just about everything that made the original so wonderful. The first thing that should set alarm bells ringing is the absence of the superb Ryuhei Kitamura at the helm. With him, he seemed to take not only his own visual flair and kinetics, but the originals style, beauty and most importantly, its heart. While the first had a simple "hitlist" plot, this one has a corkscrew mess of a story, with too many dull characters stabbing each other in the back so many times the potential for any sympathy or pathos is obliterated. Gone is the effective interplay between the lead characters; Azumi and her cohorts are often reduced to a bunch of stroppy teenagers arguing in a forest. Characterisation is non existent; if anyone watching actually cares who lives and who dies, I'll be shocked. The same applies to the villains here. The final battle - in fact all the battles - are completely devoid of any sort of tension. The fact that they are poorly choreographed and abysmally directed - not to mention few and far between - is made a sideline by their own sheer pointlessness. The villains themselves try far too hard to be campy, and even if they were all combined, they don't come within a country mile of the Pete Burnsian antics of Jo Odagiri in the original.

####Major Spoiler at end of paragraph!#####

Aya Ueto tries her best it has to be said, and she also managed to keep her hair in good condition between the films. Azumi is now a fully fledged assassin, meaning she can wave her sword around in slow motion; unfortunately, now the character is instilled with a sort of Man With No Name style mysteriousness, Ueto's model looks become even more inappropriate. I know this is supposed to be the point, but this combined with the ineffectiveness of everyone else in the film, the stupidity of the plot and the general ineptness of the film in general means it is downright impossible to get behind her character this time around. The less said about Chiaki "Remember me from Kill Bill" Kuriyama's performance the better; it suffices to say her "turn" from good to evil is about as subtle as napalm.

Overall, this was just a colossal disappointment. Any merits is does have were done ten times better in the first film. A lazy, unsatisfying - and generally downright boring - mess.


You like beautiful girls? Yeah me too. What is there bad to say about beautiful girls/women? Nothing imo, so why would I give this movie only 2 stars out of 5, although it got the "talents" of Chiaki Kuriyama and Aya Ueto?

If I really wanted to watch beautiful people, I'd watch MTV or something that's why. This is a movie, a so called action movie nevertheless. So by definition it does not even really need a plot right? I'm not agreeing 100%, but let's say yes to that. So what does it need? 20 minutes footage from part 1 (I might be exaggerating a little bit, but it felt like more than 20 minutes ...)?! That would be "No". But then again you never know, the people who watched part one might not know what they ate this morning for breakfast, so hey let's remind them ... hey maybe remind them even twice? Just to be sure they won't forget ... at least until the credits roll, of course!!!!

So forget about the story, about character development, about real emotions, about the "acting" (and no, I don't think women in skirts walking and/or fighting is accountable for acting!) ... what does that leave? Yes the action scenes. The action scenes are not bad and that's the reason I gave the movie 2 stars instead of 1! I was giving this movie a chance, but it was a waste of time ... You have better things to do/watch, believe me ...


I can't believe I actually sat through the whole thing. This movie has the worst acting since Killjoy.

Here is a brief outline of the plot: The movie starts out with Jojo and that other chick sitting around on the beach, drooling over a skinny blonde-haired beach "hunk" who looks like he hasn't been to the gym a day in his life. Somehow, everyone knows him, and every single chick in the movie wants him. UH OH! Here comes the competition! The stereotypical "hot chick" and her best friends, who drive an ugly pink car. We soon find out Jojo's mom got the job of a lifetime in Australia, which means that Jojo would have to move and leave her best friend behind (oh no, I think I'm gonna cry). A huge storm comes, and fills their swimming pool with nasty water. Somehow, for no apparent reason, the little chick falls into the pool, and comes face to face with, yup, you guessed it, a MERMAID! This is where the "story" really takes off. Basically, they want to get the mermaid to fall in love with the "hunk".

This is a preteen flick with acting so bad, it makes the 80's look like the pinnacle of Oscar-worthy performances. This movie has all the clichés possible... the best friends, the "hunk" who everyone wants, the "hot" bad girl and her bitchy friends, the scary old man... you name it, it's in there. I took one for a lot of people by watching this. Consider my hour and 40 minutes a sacrifice to you. Please, don't see this movie. Don't make it so I suffered in vain.


If I write a review about a movie, maybe it will stick with me... but generally I expect that I will have forgotten I've seen this one a mere two weeks from now. So why bother? Because again I find myself watching a low-rated movie that was fun to watch. I didn't expect I'd to be able to stay in the room while it was on.

It wasn't great, but at least it was not unbearable... not a comedy of errors which always makes me cringe. It was just sweet fluff... and if you can't take it, stay in the locker room boys. I agree with those who defend this movie because it is sure to please its targeted demographic, and won't be a total bore to an adult.

It offers a few good chuckles here and there, but nary a side splitter. Sure it is silly and only mildly entertaining, but at least it doesn't suck (as so many have said it does). Maybe those folks are afraid of their sensitive sides?

I have a tendency to grade on the bell curve, so a 4,5 or 6 is actually an okay all-around rating in my book. Giving it a 4 makes sense and will bolster its rating at the time of this writing. Giving it a 1 or a 10, as most have done thus far, makes the rating numbers meaningless. I cannot believe how strongly people feel one way or the other about this forgettable fluff (or that I am even bothering to write about it). Am I missing something?

Anyway, it should be noted that Emma Roberts performs her role as Clairedycat quite convincingly. Ariell Kebbel often written into b*ch roles does not disappoint when her character gets her due. You might also recognize Bruce Spence playing Leonard, though his role is ancillary.

Surely you can miss this one if you are an adult. But, if there is a pre-teen girl in your life, rent this movie for her... and be prepared NOT to hate it (you might even enjoy it).


A half-hearted attempt to bring Elvis Presley into the modern day, but despite a sexy little shower scene and a pseudo-Playboy magazine subplot, Presley is surrounded by the same old coy, winking clichés. A woman picks E.P. up on the beach and then proceeds to take over his life--and he doesn't seem to care! Dick Sargent is grueling in another sidebar, but Don Porter and Rudy Vallee (!) try hard as Elvis' two bosses (he's moonlighting, you see). Some of the songs are quite good, especially "Almost in Love", but if you want to see a looser, hipper, updated Elvis sex-comedy--look elsewhere. When Elvis and his Fatal Attraction get into bed together, there's actually a wooden board in between them! Get real. ** from ****


When I was seventeen I genuinely believed Elvis to be the king of rock and roll, and not only did I wish to see all 31 of his "character" movies, but it was my ambition to own them, too. What an exceptionally poor excuse for a seventeen-year-old I must have been. Thankfully sense prevailed and Live A Little, Love A Little is the only Elvis film I own.

The spotlight has fallen on this one recently since a remixed version of top song A Little Less Conversation has been released as a single. (His first to reach the UK top ten in 22 years  his first UK No.1 in 25) Even when I was seventeen and in serious need of psychiatric help I realised that the songs for this movie weren't exactly first rate. However, A Little Less Conversation - rollnecks and 60s grooving aside - is a real standout. Finding a lesser-known song that only a relatively small few are aware of promoted into the mainstream produces a mixture of emotions. It's nice to finally see faith in a song vindicated, but it's also saddening to see the disintegration of your own private cult. (And what chauvinistic lyrics, too. Though what other Elvis song contains the word "procrastinate"?)

But what really bothers me about this film is not A Little Less Conversation but the 84 minutes that surround it. Actually based on a novel (Kiss My Firm But Pliant Lips - what kind of lame novel would that be?) this one sees a bored Elvis holed up with a "comedy" dog and a nympho. Within 90 seconds of meeting him, Michele Carey asks "would you like to make love to me?" Quite a fast mover by any standards I'm sure you'll agree.

I do seem to recall that some of Elvis's early movies - most notably Jailhouse Rock and King Creole - weren't too bad, but this is just identikit hillbilly cobblers. Being fired from a newspaper job can lead to a five minute karate fight with a couple of gingernuts, causing a motorway pile up is good for a laugh, and models dress as pink mermaids. There's even a dream sequence for God's sake. Maybe the only dumb stereotype it doesn't conform to is in not having all that many songs. With just four to choose from, including the credits number, you're waiting an average of 22 minutes between tracks. Some movies would become vapid by having too many tunes, but here they might have helped to have numbed the pain. Of the remaining three tracks, then The Edge of Reality isn't actually that bad, though Elvis's dance to it must surely have been called "The Bear Trap".

In one sense, for a PG certificate film from 1968 then this is shockingly high on sexual content. Sadly, however, with talking dogs, Middle America sitcom values and the stiffest dancing you'll ever see, Elvis's dignity is obliterated by this movie.


LIVE A LITTLE, LOVE A LITTLE is one of Elvis' weirdest movies. Part slapstick, part fluff, part surreal and part strange. Elvis meets up with a very off-beat girl with an annoying voice. She looks like Jennifer Aniston. Story doesn't make much sense as is the case with most Elvis Presley movies, and there a bunch of odd characters galore. Not much music in this one, but what there is I liked, although none are memorable. Strange continuity. Elvis and Michelle Carey go into her beach house at night, but a few minutes later a delivery boy comes in and it's stark daylight!! What?? That's about the essence of the movie. What?? Oh, two good things about the movie: A) Elvis looks great and B) the dog steals the show.


This is easily the worst Presley vehicle ever, which would bring us pretty close to the worst film ever made. It is measurably worse than even the revolting "Happy Ending" song at the end of "It Happened At The World's Fair", and here I thought that moment when Elvis buys all of the vendor's balloons for his girl, and then the balloon vendor gets jiggy to the marching band was the epitome of bad cinema and could not be topped. I usually enjoy the random Elvis flick if for no other reason but the memories of a time when we were innocent enough to sit through it. This one, however, ought to be called "Live a Little, Wish You Were Dead a Little", and makes "Stay Away Joe" look like Olivier playing Othello.

Here, Elvis plays Greg, who is essentially a hippie free-lance photographer except for the Establishment haircut. After a fun morning of reckless driving, he ends up at the beach where he is abducted by a woman who's name changes depending on the scene and who is speaking to her. Clearly Michele Carey was selected for her resemblance to and ability to mimic Elizabeth Taylor (if I watched this without my glasses, I would have thought it was late 1960's Liz playing the female lead). She sics her dog on Elvis until he runs into the water and catches convenient movie pneumonia, then she keeps him doped up out of consciousness in her beach pad so long he loses his job and his apartment so she moves his stuff into her house before he awakens without even telling him (the audience does not know about it either, until Elvis tries to go back to work and his boss has him beaten up for no reason except he deserved it for making this movie, and tries to go home and finds some hateful woman in a slip living in his house).

Rather than having her arrested for kidnapping, larceny and assault, he goes out and gets two jobs to repay the back rent Miss Crazy Pants had to spring for when stealing all of his belongings. Job one is working for Don Porter at a Playboy type magazine, job two is upstairs working for Rudy Vallee at a snobby fashion magazine. I think the two-job shuffling is supposed to be the comedy, too bad it isn't the least bit funny, unless you'd laugh the 100th time you saw someone run up and down stairs in fast-motion to silly music. The predominate obstacle that keeps Greg from falling for his abductor is her other love interest, the dreadfully miscast Dick Sargent (let's face it, either Porter or Vallee, even given their advanced ages in 1968, would have made far more believable competitors for Miss Crazy's affections).

There are a variety of uninteresting and unfunny twists and turns, I kept waiting for something, anything to happen that would make all of this make sense. It never did. Entertainment totals approximately three minutes and is comprised of Elvis' rendition of "A Little Less Talk" (which I can listen to on CD without this painful movie inflicted upon me) and a funny five second bit where Elvis flops on the couch and Crazy Pants has apparently disassembled it so it flies all to pieces when he lands on it. That's it, folks, busted furniture, the only laugh in this entire film. No amount of mod sixties clothing, music, or décor can salvage this high-heaven stinker and it should be avoided at all costs. Viewing this can create an unnatural desire on the part of the audience toward the self-infliction of grave bodily harm.


This film is really something of a curate's egg, good in parts. In contrast to other reviewers, I found that the main fault with it is its inability to draw in the viewer's interest in the characters and the plot. I sat through it because I'm interested in rock'n'roll and the dynamics of bands, but if I were to evaluate it purely on the basis of its merit as a movie, I would have to give it the thumbs down, with a few caveats: Jason Behr is good in the part of John Livien, and quite convincing as a rock singer; the narrative regarding his childhood trauma is unclear, although we are given hints in Livien's well-acted relationship to his parents, but his behaviour is ultimately bizarre to the viewer (which it shouldn't be). Nevertheless the idea of using a stage persona to solve inner conflicts is interesting, albeit not novel nor fully explored as a theme in this film. The allusions to John Lennon were irritating, but I confess I'm not a Beatles fan. At any rate, Livien and his band reminded me more of Oasis than the Beatles, in the sense that there was something derivative about them. Another frustrating thing about the movie was the way it opened up with some interesting - albeit middlebrow and high-school level - philosophical musings of the lead character, but left the threads of his thinking there, only to pick them up again in the middle of the film very briefly, when Livien says, "before God, there was music" (ever seen that ad for Tia Maria in the 1990s, "Before time, there was Tia Maria"? That's what sprung to mind anyway); it seems an idiotic conclusion, and the viewer has no idea how he reached it, but he's entitled to it. Fortunately his bassist and friend, played ably by Dominic Monaghan, seems to acknowledge the fallacy of this thinking when he responds "You don't know that".

In all, the limited strengths of the direction and the plot could go either way on future projects, into pointless banality or into an interesting and more mature perspective.


Yet another film about a tortured self-centered, arrogant, unfeeling hateful, self-destructive lead character we are supposed to care about.

Don't get me wrong I am very open to all kinds of off the wall movies that have as the lead character a strongly self-destructive character. What I object to about this one is that there is so little background to this guy. Why did this guy hate himself and the world? Had the script dealt with this more they might have managed to elicit some sympathy for him. As it is he just comes off as an unpleasant hateful character, not tragic, just hateful.

After taking great pains to make this guy as crazy and anti-social as possible and making his fate as dark as possible the writer then has the nerve to make a happy ending....

This is not the worst film I have ever seen but it is in there putting up a good fight! Man! Don't waste your time.


A great opportunity for and Indy director to make an interesting film about a rock musician on the brink of stardom. It could have been a decent film if it would have dealt with John Livien's traumatic past and how it is torturing his psyche. Instead, it is a ridiculous attempt to identify John Livien's life with John Lennon's. John Livien's suicida mother's hero was John Lennon and she wished for him to become as powerful and prolific as Lennon himself. Instead of focusing on John Lennon's musical brilliance, and his wonderful ability to bare himself for others to learn something about their own life, it showed Lennon's legacy to be that of a confused, drug addicted soul, who should looked upon as a God instead a man. I am a huge John Lennon fan and this movie reminded me of another "crazy" person obsessed with Lennon, Lennon's killer , Mark David Chapman. Lennon was a man who was brutally murdered by someone else who had an identity crisis with Lennon. Do we need to be reminded of that? John Lennon gave so much to the world with his music and honesty and I was repulsed to see another disturbed person, as the main character in this movie obsessed by Lennon, and not show his beautiful contributions to the world. Yoko Ono graciously honored John Lennon's memory,by making the memorial in Central Park to give his fans a chance to pay their respects, and remember John. Instead the director of this movie chose to use that site to have the killer attempt to commit suicide. I found this so disturbing and disrespectful to Lennon's memory. He was a man of peace who died a brutal senseless death, and to see such violence near this site felt like a revisiting a terrible wound for any Lennon fan. It ruined the movie completely for me . It could have been a decent movie, but it left me with a bitter taste in my mouth. Let John Lennon, and his family rest in peace and not be reminded of his vicious murder by this irresponsible movie.


This is one of the worst movies I've ever seen. I saw it at the premiere at SXSW and was extremely disappointed. The director knew little about John Lennon and even said as much at the premiere. This is a drama, but people were laughing throughout at how cheesy the film was. That's never a good sign. The only saving graces were Dominic Monaghan and Jason Leonard as Livien's roommates/bandmates. They were funny while the rest of the movie took itself waaay too seriously. The cheesy dropping of Beatles lyrics was just absurd. The soundtrack was excellent, however, and was probably the best part of the movie. Unless you're one of those crazy, rabid Dominic Monaghan fans, don't bother with this one.