Private Practice is supposed to be a medical drama. So I guess my biggest complaint is the lack of originality in the medical story lines. Just by watching House, I "solved" two (out of nine) medical mysteries before the doctors did. Boooring. Seriously, if you are a lazy writer, why not copy some cases out of older ER episodes or some obscure Brazilian medical soap? House is recent and popular - recycling their ideas is hard to get away with...

Second biggest complaint: these people are supposed to be forty-somethings, right? Then why do they have to behave with the emotional maturity of 15-year-olds? Is three weeks (ie. three whole damn episodes) of intense thinking really necessary to understand that if your best friend doesn't want to be your "friend with benefits", it's maybe not because he wants to hurt you, but because he doesn't want to risk your friendship? The character doing all the thinking is a psychiatrist by the way - the whole storyline is just so unrealistic that you can't really buy into the supposed "drama".

And I won't even start complaining about what the show did to everyone's favorite Addison as we got to know her in Grey's Anatomy... On a sidenote, don't you think it's funny the way Addison ends up lusting after loser Pete (sorry, but everyone who tries to cure insomnia with Mozart's Requiem is a loser, PhD or not) and Derek ends up entangled in a relationship with whiny, irritating Meredith miles away in rainy Seattle? Apart from that little fling with Mark, they seemed to be perfect for each other. Sometimes I think Shonda Rhimes' subconscious is trying to tell us that in relationships, our first choice is often the right one...


I have seen every episode of this spin off. I thought the first season was a decent effort considering the expectations of following such a success that is Grey's Anatomy. Thus i have continued to watch. I'm afraid the second season lacks the charm, the chemistry and more importantly the drama of it's predecessor Grey's Anatomy. The relationships seem contrived and the acting is so-so. The writing lacks the intelligence and comedic hints seen in GA. There are shows that a formulaic but do not feel formulaic and contrived, unfortunately PP is not so. I loved Kate Walsh's presence in GA. I'm afraid Kate Walsh's life in LA is simply not interesting.


I've watched a few episodes of this show and have found certain elements of it to be rather interesting, considering medical facts that can be learned. But this is totally upstaged and wrecked by the neverending immoral relationships of the show's characters. Everybody seems to have slept with just about everyone, even during office hours, which is ridiculously unrealistic. There doesn't seem to be one solid, lasting marriage or relationship in the entire show - everyone is broken up and on the prowl - hardly a true reflection of all Americans. Indeed, there is a total lack of respect for marriage or monogamy and it's truly fulsome.

Then we are presented with endless little moral 'dilemmas' and they're generally solved in such a way that belittles anyone who doesn't agree with the all-knowing degenerate management and staff of the private practice. For instance, in one of the latest episodes we're presented with an exceedingly rare situation of a baby who is born with an uncertain gender and Addison absolutely refuses to perform the surgery because we're supposed to let the baby decide his gender later on. Anyone who disagrees with this is portrayed as immature and stupid.

And I think that anyone opposed to abortion would be offended by the way the show treats pro-lifers. Addison made the comment that no man was allowed to have an opinion on the issue and only one black character was given dignity for opposing abortion on moral grounds. The general feeling was that if you opposed abortion, you're a freak - hardly the popular sentiment in the US. Two of the main characters in the show nonchalantly mention that they had abortions when they were younger and had no apologies or regrets, in spite of the fact that research has shown women can undergo intense depression. What's more a young girl comes to the clinic for an abortion and then thanks the staff on the way out and someone talks about it as how they were helping this young person and it was like something to exult in. The script could have been written by Planned Parenthood.

All in all, this is a cheap show that lacks much of a future unless it decides to present more real relationships rather than just totally unbelievable soap opera relationships and far-fetched medical situations throughout the whole show.


"Private Practice" is being spun off the fairly successful and well written "Grey's Anatomy". The cast is fabulous. The premise might even work. But the writing is just terrible.

The pre-pilot disguised as a Grey's Anatomy episode should have been my first warning. The plot was just blah. I thought maybe it was a fluke. So I set the DVR to tape the pilot and all other episodes.

As I was watching the pilot, I just kept wondering how a show with such a cast of fine actors could put together a boring pilot. The pilot is supposed to suck people in and keep them coming back for more. There's supposed to be excitement, flash, great writing, intriguing storyline with a cliffhanger that needs to be answered throughout the rest of the season. Amazingly, this show had none of that.

Thinking it was a fluke, I just watched the second episode hoping for the best. And although marginally better, it doesn't come close to what it needs to be interesting can't miss TV.

I just scrubbed this show from my list of shows to watch. Not worth the effort IMO, and I would be very surprised if this show even makes it through mid season. Pass this one up folks.


The complaints are valid, to me the biggest problem is that this soap opera is too aimed for women. I am okay with these night time soaps, like Grey's Anatomy, or Ugly Betty, or West Wing, because there are stories that are interesting even with the given that they will never end. However, when the idea parallels the daytime soaps aimed at just putting hunky men (Taye Diggs, Tim Daly, and Chris Lowell) into sexual tension and romps, and numerous ridiculous difficult situations in a so-called little hospital, it seems like General Hospital...or a female counterpart to Baywatch. That was what men wanted and they had it, so if this is what women want so be it, but the idea that this is a high brow show (or something men will watch) is unrealistic.


I did not think this movie was worth anything bad script, bad acting except for Janine Turner, no fantasy, stupid plot, dumb-ass husband and unfair divorce settings. If you have never seen this movie before don't even bother it's not worth it at all. The only thing that was good about it was that Janine Turner, did a good job acting. Terry's husband is a stuck up smart-ass defense attorney who has won a lot of cases and even gotten guility murderers off. He think he is so smart but he is really just a nut. Her best friend has an affair with her husband and betrays her. Nice girl huh. Yeah she's a real peach, not. She's no day at the beach either.


Woman with wig, who "dyes" her hair in the middle of the film (=takes of wig) presumably does not see what the audience can see from miles away:

*** begin spoiler alert *** that her hubby is having an affair with her best girlfriend and they both try get rid of her. *** end of spoiler alert ***

And what a spoiler that was: the title already gives it away, doesn't it? Bad acting, bad script: waste of time Oh yeah: in the end, she lives happily ever after....

If you liked this movie, you'll really love "Cannibal women in the Avocado Jungle of Death"....


Saw this movie when it first came out in the 1970's and hated, hated, hated it! Easily the most booooring movie I have ever seen in my life. Don't know where Leigh got his inspiration but this is one of those movies where you want to shake the characters to get them to open their mouths and communicate. The title says it all because there are no saving moments in this movie, just long, long silences with people unable to articulate what they are (presumably) feeling. If you want to watch something that will drive you to drink then this is the one for you. If you have nothing better to do for two hours then stick a fork in a toaster: the experience will be infinitely more pleasurable than anything you will get from this! Yes, Leigh came up with a lot of really worthwhile stuff much later in his career but give this one a miss.


"Nada" was the most inadequate follow-up to "Les NOces Rouges" which,with hindsight,appears now as the last good movie of Chabrol's golden era (1967-1973) "Nada" is Chabrol's first real attempt at a wholly political movie;its previous work "les Noces Rouges" had also political elements but it was more a psychological thriller with the usual look at society in French provinces."Nada" includes terrorists,ambassador,hostage-taking,a lot of blood,not really Chabrol's field.A heterogeneous cast gives the movie the coup de grâce :only Duchaussoy,who had already played with the director ,and Maurice Garrel are up to scratch.Viviane Romance ,one of Duvivier's actresses ("la Belle Equipe" "Panique") ,is wasted as a madam (Gabrielle).Italian actors (Fabio Testi,Lou Castel)are awful.

With "Nada" this a second period of barren inspiration for Chabrol .It would be "Violette Nozières" before he was again at the top of his game.


In a time when the constitution and principals the United States were founded on are trampled underfoot by an administration desperate to distract attention from its own internal problems, where the Geneva Convention, human rights and foreign sovereignty are unapologetically discarded, a thriller about the state taking illegal action that far exceeds that of the terrorists they are countering might seem appropriate. However, if you want to see a film about that, try Ed Zwick's flawed THE SIEGE instead, because NADA is one of the most infantile 'political' thrillers ever made. Like Robert Altman's PRET-A-PORTER, the director has taken on a subject he seems completely ignorant of, and imprints his ignorance on almost every frame.

His terrorists are a wildly unconvincing group of stereotypes - Fabio Testi dresses as if he were auditioning for MAD Magazine's 'Spy vs. Spy' strip, Michel Duchaussoy behaves like an absurd KIDS IN THE HALL send up of the sociology professor from Hell, Mariangela Melato a cardboard middle-class revolutionary wannabe - who behave at every unconvincing plot turn as if they want to be caught. The corrupt authorities fare a little better, but are still painted in unconvincingly broad strokes.

It is possible to make a smart film about dumb people (cf ELECTION), but this is a moronic film about dumb people made by people who think they're intellectuals who are talking down to the masses. In truth, were one to recast Testi, Duchaussoy and Melato with Jim Varney, Johnny Knoxville and Shannon Tweed, the result would actually be to raise the intellectual content of the film, not lower it.

Chabrol might just have got away with his characters and events if he took them seriously, but his staging is so inept (the fight scenes would embarrass a kindergarten class while the shooting of the kidnapping is more inept than the kidnapping itself) and his inability to get his cast to perform with at least some approximation of recognisable human behaviour so blatant that it is actually embarrassing to watch (special mention must be made here of Duchaussoy: so very good in Chabrol's QUE LA BETE MUERE, he is stunningly bad here in a performance that is so far over the top it's back again).

Chabrol has made some fine films, but you would never guess it from this amateurish mess - a newcomer to his work would never want to see another of his films after this, which would be a great shame. Utter drivel, and a sad waste of a potentially interesting material. One star out of ten - and that's being very generous.


It's obvious that all of the good reviews posted for this movie so far are from insiders who were either involved with the film or who know somebody who knows somebody and have thus seen multiple cuts. Well, I don't know anyone involved, and I've seen the final cut, and it is pure garbage. The only thing it has going for it is ambition and multiple cameos from horror legends (none on screen for terribly long). It's as if the filmmakers made this movie on a weekend during a horror convention and got actors like Tony Todd, Tom Savini, David Hess and Michael Berryman to film scenes during their coffee breaks. This is an ultra-cheap, shot-on-video wannabe X-Files with terrible acting from a cast of non-actors with more mullets than is acceptable in the 21st century. There is little or no action; it's all overly explanatory dialogue that attempts to explain a pointlessly convoluted plot. Ther computer FX are a joke, but there aren't enough of them nor enough action to make this film enjoyable in a MST3K way. After about 8 straight scenes of nothing but talking, you'll find yourself reaching for the fast-forward button...and not letting go. Absolutely worthless.


I don't know where to begin. This movie feels a lot like one of those cheap Saturday morning kids shows that they used to make back in the late eighties early nineties. Sort of like Captain Power or the Power Rangers. It's full of bad digital overlays and really cheesy sounding "secret agencies" and villains.

The acting is so bad that it's not even funny. The direction is terrible and there is little to now continuity. It seems as if someone just threw a bunch of scenes together and forgot that there was supposed to be a plot.

Perhaps one of the most ridiculous scenes in the movie comes early on, when several villains plant an explosive device in an agents car. For some reason, even though the device is clearly stated as being "remote detonated" the bad guys decide to chase her down on their motorcycles as she drives away. This chase carries on. all the while with the bad guys doing ludicrous and completely pointless bike stunts. Standing up on the bikes, doing wheelies and so on. At one point, a crash happens and one of the attackers is thrown from his bike, we see the bike (clearly cgi) thrown over the agents car but the rider has vanished. Then, a few seconds later the rider and bike return...apparently unscathed by the crash. At this point even though the car has an explosive device planted in it, the attackers choose to shoot the agent while driving past, then blow up her car. Which was also clearly done with cgi. Sound confusing? It is, and so is the rest of the movie.

I might point out that when I say cgi, we aren't talking about Lord Of The Rings type cgi here. We're talking the cheap cheesy Power Rangers type cgi, actually I think it would have been done better on Power Rangers.

Why Savini and Todd did this movie I will never know, I can only assume they did for money, as a favor to someone or because they were blackmailed into it...probably the last one.


I am sorry to say that this film is indeed bad. It reminds me of a c-grade porn movie with one major difference: no porn.

The story and dialogue needs a complete overhaul. Maybe then the bad acting would not have been as noticeable. At the very least, the pacing should have been picked up.

While I accept that this had a low budget and the director did a good job visually given what little resources he had, he should have spent more time on the story or better yet, get someone else to write it. Many of the action scenes were just pointless.

It was a complete waste of my time.


Now I don't hate cheap movies. I just don't see why you should waste any money for a movie you could shoot with your dad's camcorder. If I rent a movie, I want it to be a MOVIE, not a bunch of people thinking it would be a good idea to waste some MiniDV - Tapes.

Maybe I hate this one so much because the guy in the video store said it was great, and it wasn't. Maybe I hate it because it's cheap, has the dumbest plot EVER, the most unrealistic characters EVER and the really, really, really WORST SHOWDOWN in the history of films EVER. Even Tom Savini can't save this.

Seriously, this one is a complete waste of time.


Absence of a GOOD PLOT, absence of decent ACTING, absence of good CINEMATOGRAPHY, absence of decent looking SPECIAL EFFECTS...need I go on? Review MAY contain SPOILERS. The actors appear to be READING their lines, and not very well at that. Most of the "actors" were acting like they were in a SECOND GRADE play. The story appeared to have been written by one of the aforementioned second graders...it's not really all that convoluted...it's just so SIMPLE and DUMB, that a person thinks they must be missing something so they think it is convoluted. Nope it's not, it's EXACTLY as SIMPLE as you think it is. I UNDERSTOOD the "film", that's how i KNOW that it STUNK! MOST of the film just had people sitting around talking(reading their lines), TRYING to look sinister. The narrator was ANNOYING. The "special effects" were LAUGHABLE. I love low budget movies. I also like Carolyn Munro, Tom Savini, Jack Scarry, and Michael Berrymore...just not in THIS movie...you can tell they weren't getting paid, or weren't getting paid much, because neither their hearts NOR their talents were in it. I LOVE Tony Todd...however, he was only adequate in this movie. In fact, Tony Todd's performance is the ONLY reason I gave it 3 stars instead of 1...and Tony was only in it for a whole TWO MINUTES (seriously)! I would suggest to fast forward the DVD to the two minute Tony Todd segment. If I had gone to the theater, and paid more than a DOLLAR to see this "film" I would have been P.O.'D and demanded my money back. Hopefully the people who made this will do better next time.


I had the "privilege" of attending a special screening of 'The Absence of Light' at a horror convention in Ohio.

First off, you know you're in trouble when the director introduces a film, saying: "Now keep in mind, we didn't have much money..." Not that no-budget films are bad, but when a filmmaker uses this as an excuse, the results are always poor. And there is no better example than this unwatchable sleep-fest.

Actually, 'Absence of Light' marks a first in the world of underground cinema: It's the only time I've seen a dream-cast of talented genre vets actually bore me. Charismatic actors like David Hess, Tony Todd and Reggie Banister randomly enter and exit the movie and prove to be every bit as uninteresting as the amateurish no-names. Who are their characters? What are they talking about? Who cares? It's all so dull, you'll cease to care about anything or anyone.

After thirty minutes of this endurance test, I gave up and walked out of the theater. Not surprisingly, so did most of the cast members in attendance.

Any curious genre fans would do well to stay away from this. With a little luck, this movie won't ever see the "light" of day.


The Honey, I Shrunk the Kids franchise was a huge deal and not to mention very famous. I loved Honey, I shrunk the Kids when I was little. It was an original story and had such an exciting plot! The sets were so amazing and the cast seemed like they enjoyed each other's company. Now Honey, I blew up the kid was pretty stupid, so I think they wanted to go back to the story that everyone loved.

Basically, Adam is a little more grown up now and the mom's are going on vacation to leave their husbands with their children. But when Wayne's favorite item is threatened for the garbage, he wants to shrink it and keep it, but he and his brother get in the way. But when the wives come back after forgetting to give some meds to their son, they get caught in the machine as well, leaving the kids in the house alone!

The plot is silly, but like I said, it was just a family film that I think some might get a kick out of. The original Honey, I Shrunk the Kids is the best, I think everyone could agree. The third one wasn't so bad, I would recommend this one at least over Honey, I Blew Up the Kid movie, it was at least a little more fun.

4/10


If you liked the first two films, then I'm sorry to say you're not going to like this one. This is the really rubbish and unnecessary straight to video, probably TV made sequel. The still idiotic but nice scientist Wayne Szalinski (Rick Moranis) is still living with his family and he has his own company, Szalinski Inc. Unfortunately his wife wants to get rid of a statue, Wayne is so stupid he shrinks his statue and himself with his brother. Then he shrinks his wife and sister-in-law too. Now the adults have to find a way to get the kids of the house to get them bigger. Pretty much a repeat of the other two with only one or two new things, e.g. a toy car roller coaster, swimming in dip, etc. Pretty poor!


Yes, talk about bad sequels. Rick Moranis stars in this awful third sequel to the once-funny-and-entertaining "Honey I Shrunk the Kids". The concept basically plays the same way as the first film, but with the adults instead of the kids being shrunk and the inner house instead of the garden as the universe to explore. If you think this sounds interesting, think again. The movie is boring at best, right down an embarrassment at worst.

First of all, the continuity of the series has been completely flushed down the toilet. The only remaining actor of the first movie is apparently Rick Moranis. The actress playing his wife has changed, the actors playing the kids have changed, the ones playing the neighbors have changed... you name it. They try to make us believe this is the same family, but the results are puzzling to say the least.

Second, the story is a rehash of the first one, with not one bit of originality. All the few jokes (and there's barely any) and the dangerous situations presented in the movie are just copied straight from "Honey I Shrunk the Kids".

Third problem, the special effects. I'm sure this has been done on a smaller budget, but they are pathetic, way way worse than the ones appearing in the rest of the series. You're supposed to admire in awe these tiny figures exploring the huge domestic area, but you'll probably end up cringing most of the time.

Fourth problem, to locate the action inside the house is just boring. Only few things happen, and when they happen, they are not thrilling at all. The first movie was amusing because the kids were dealing with nature, the grass, and the bugs that live in it. In this one, the adults (which come up as rather boring, compared to the kids) deal with dust, a cockroach and a cockroach trap. Disgusting.

I don't know why the idea of releasing such a trite sequel to the already moribund series appealed Disney's executives, except maybe because they needed to cash in without spending five minutes thinking about something new. I'm warning you: leave this tasteless cash-in garbage where it should stay: getting dust on the shop's shelves.


This straight-to-video duffer is another nail in the coffin of Rick Moranis's career. As is the Disney tradition, quality is sacrificed in the name of a quick cash-in; this is a lazy retread with Moranis accidentally shrinking himself and a few relatives so they can repeat all the best scenes from the original movie. Instantly dated visual effects and crummy dialogue abound in this cheesy lamer, which did nothing but make me pine for the days of 'The Incredible Shrinking Man', when this kind of thing was done properly. Shockingly, this is directed by top cinematographer Dean Cundey, who should either stick to the day job or pick better material next time.


Inventor Wayne Szalinsky (Rick Moranis) is preparing to donate his problematic shrinking/expanding machine to the Smithsonian Institution as he and his wife Diane (Eve Gordon) get ready for a long weekend away from their son Adam (Bug Hall). Wayne's brother Gordon (Stuart Pankin), his wife Patty (Robin Bartlett), and his kids Jenny (Allison Mack) and Mitch (Jake Richardson) volunteer to look after Adam while his parents are away, but as luck would have it (and the title would lead you to expect), the grown-ups are accidentally zapped by Wayne's shrinking ray. As the kids run amok, their miniaturized folks must contend with monstrously huge insects, wrinkles in the carpet that look like canyons, and other threats to them. This was bad, like most straight to video sequels are, Honey, We Shrunk Ourselves was sort of laughable. I had to laugh at that movie "roach" Stuart Pankin and the party bullies were even more ridiculous, view at own risk!


Made one year before ILSA, SHE-WOLF OF THE SS, BLACKSNAKE could have easily been called SUSAN, SHE-WOLF OF THE PLANTATION and it probably inspired the producers behind the Nazi sexploitation epics to go ahead with their more infamous films because the stories are identical: a gorgeous, horny, head strong (but stupid) blonde woman degrades and kills many people under her control, whom all hate her and want her dead. Sounds familiar? Director Russ Meyer and David Friedman, the producer behind the ILSA flicks, are good friends and they started their careers together. So, obviously, there's a connection there. Looking at BLACKSNAKE, I can't help but think that Russ Meyer wanted to move on and do something else than his typical busty women epics because XXX movies were all the rage during the mid 1970s, and Russ Meyer films, though filled with nudity and kinkiness and violence, were never even close to real porn. His films started to look positively quaint next to DEEP THROAT and other hard-core porno blockbusters. Meyer knew he couldn't compete with such films and BLACKSNAKE is sorta the end result of such a quandary in his career. He obviously wanted to branch out into different uncharted territory. But BLACKSNAKE bombed at the B.O. and Meyer quickly returned to making VIXEN type of films that, even if they still weren't pornographic, they were most definitely more over-the-top than any of his previous films.

It's no wonder BLACKSNAKE was a B.O. failure. It's just terrible. Trash-o-rama. Jaw-droppingly bad. It's a quasi-campy take on slavery, if you can imagine that. The end result is jarring. One minute, we're in typical Meyer territory: exuberant, playful and silly, and then the next minute, super serious meditation on slavery and violence. Huh? It just doesn't work. The slavery/racism aspect is woefully mishandled and veers this movie in the true exploitation category. But BLACKSNAKE is not as sleazy as ILSA SHE WOLF OF THE SS and those kind of films, so I imagine fans of the latter were disappointed by it, which would explain the almost lack of interest in this movie from either exploitation fans or Russ Meyer fans. Meyer blames the failure of BLACKSNAKE because, and I quote, "It didn't have enough breasts in it." Well, I'm sorry Russ, but the film is just bad, breast or no breasts. But he's right though about the low breast quota. Except for Anouska and the maid, the film's cast is male. Meyer replaces his usual bevy of buxom babes with throng of hunks with massive pecs, in the form of anonymous black actors playing the slaves and the big David (Darth Vader) Prowse. And with Anouska's right hand man around, who is portrayed as a ruthless but clever gay man who enjoys the power he has over the men, one can only wonder what Meyer was really trying to create here.

BLACKSNAKE stars David Warbeck, who is lusted after by Anouska and her right hand man. Poor David. He looks totally befuddled by the whole experience. He did seem to have fun making the movie but you can clearly see that, at times, he has no idea what's going on. And then there's Anouska Hempel. She's a beautiful woman...for the 1970s, not the 1870s. With her makeup and hair, she looks like a typical 1970s Brit pin-up babe than a turn of the century dominatrix. And her wardrobe is hilarious. At one time, she actually unzips her leather boots! I didn't know they had zippers in those days. But the character she plays is, in itself, really degrading (no pun intended). She's nothing but a cipher to the object of lust and scorn of every men (and that woman) on the island. For example, one night, when David and Anouska are getting it on, her annoying slave driver walks in the room, knocks David unconscious and tries to rape her, groping her savagely. The next day, the slave driver is still working for Anouska and the two act as if nothing had happened. It's totally ludicrous. Under any circumstance, had her character been a real person, Anouska would have whipped the slave driver senseless and kicked his butt off the island. Or even killed him. But the fact that the woman keeps him on her plantation after he tried to rape her is stretching the flimsy story and characters' credulity to the max.

Ridiculous details like this, and the thoroughly startling blaxploitation angle makes BLACKSNAKE a strangely unpleasant but watchable movie. Watchable in the train wreck variety. I just couldn't help but watch the film for the utter baseless aspects of it all (the excellent cinematography sorta makes it easier to watch). So, this being an exploitation film, I guess it succeeded in doing what it was supposed to do. But BLACKSNAKE is mainly for Russ Meyer completists.


I had to watch this film because the plot was so outrageous and the film lived up to expectations. In fact it makes for quite uncomfortable viewing at times. Unlike other Meyer films, the sexual antics are down to a minimum. Some of the scenes of violence are unnecessarily gratuitous and offensive. The plot is chaotic and some of the acting and lines are dreadful.

The film is a strange combination of sado-masochistic fantasy combined with a window of the brutality and immorality of the slavery and fails on all counts. It's as though Meyer was trying to make up for the sexploitation/ blackploitation by having a higher moral message. Meyer knows we feel a bit guilty about getting turned on by the blatant dominatrix connotations of the early scene showing Lady Susan wielding a whip in a provocative outfit. He then tries to steer back to the righteous path by turning it into a film about the triumph of good over evil. However, because they cancel each other out, you end up with nothing.

Because it so bad in so many ways, it is actually worth watching if you appreciate the art of making an awful film in the worst possible taste. Perhaps, because it is so bad, we almost let Meyer get away with the unacceptable.


If you can make it thru "classic Meyer" titles/intro, you can wade thru anything. But would you want to? I did not find a lot there to dig my teeth into. I suppose if you go into it with low enuff expectations you will be delighted (a la Charlie's Angels.) But for my money I'd like a little something more, more visual, more moving. More. I feel like I'm begging for gruel @ the foot of the master . the mans got the goods . but he just won't share.


You remember the Spice Girls movie and how bad it was (besides the songs), well their manager Simon Fuller (also this band's manager) makes the same error putting S Club (another of my favourite bands) in their own film. S Club: Tina Barrett, Jon Lee, Bradley Mcintosh, Jo O'Meara, Hannah Spearritt and Rachel Stevens (what happened to the seventh member, Paul Cattermole?) basically ask their boss for a break, they go on, and while there they see themselves on TV! Three of them swap, and vice versa, half discover they are clones made by a greedy scientist, and the other half just get themselves in trouble. Also starring Gareth Gates as a clone of himself. This film may have more of a plot than Spice Girls' film did, but besides the songs "Bring It All Back", "Don't Stop Movin'" and "Never Had A Dream Come True" this is no goo reason to see this film. Not too long after the band split for good. Adequate!


Being S Club Seven, the film already boosts an ecstatic atmosphere! But seriously, Oprah has a point when claiming: "Don't go there, girl!" Spice World suddenly doesn't seem to be all that bad... I take my money elsewhere!


Rachel, Jo, Hannah, Tina, Bradley and John are all on top form here. They deserve oscar nominations for their performances. I am a great fan of the tv show aswell. Their music rocks and they're all so talented! I am also a great exponent of SARCASM!!!!!!

IF YOU'RE AN S CLUB FAN DO NOT READ THIS!!!!!

The performances are terribly weak, the dialogue is terrible and the jokes are not even executed properly (i feel sorry for the director). The jokes are so unbelievably bad that 8 little, passionate S Club fans weren't laughing. They thought they could do it better. And they did. They conquered the world. They became S Club Juniors. Paul, "the fat, ugly one who started a mosh band" must be thanking his lucky stars that he left when he did. One of the worst movies ever made. BEWARE OF THIS MOVIE! DO NOT GO AND SEE IT! YOU WON'T LAUGH! YOU WILL CRY! 0/10 RJT


Loaded with fine actors, I expected much more from "Deceiver" than was delivered. The plot is extremely contrived and manipulative. The many flashbacks only add to the confusion. Believability flies out the window and with the ending becomes unbearable and downright ridiculous. I would strongly advise anyone who likes their movie plots to be based on something that is at least possible to avoid "Deceiver" because you will be very frustrated. Maybe I am just not hip enough to get it, but my suspicion is that many others were totally confused by the story line and especially by the ending. Blurring the line between reality and lies simply does not work because the entire movie made no sense. - MERK


***SPOILER ALERT***

I love Tim Roth, I really do, and he does his best with an unbelievable role. I can see how this is a movie that might look good as a script, but it's convoluted, unlikely and ultimately silly. I saw the fake death ending coming a mile away. Rene Z. tries hard with an underwritten part, and so does Patricia Arquette. The detective whose name I can't remember (the one that's not Chris Penn) is a big sweaty over actor. See it if you're not smart enough to differentiate between a movie being so clever you can't follow it, and so confusing you can't understand it. See it if you like cheesy camera work that makes you seasick. See it if you love to watch Tim Roth work with an unwieldy script. See it if it comes on late at night for free. Otherwise, rent The Usual Suspects.


OK so i am like most people, give me free tickets and i will go and see most things, now that multiplex cinemas are so good (i remember the old "flea pit" single screen cinemas and i am the healthy side of 40). In England this film was released as "Liar", it's a dog. It is a total waste of good celluloid. 4/10 for the photograpy and set only.


Elvis Presley plays a "half-breed" Native American ("Indian") who has to defend his reservation from nasty business tycoons. Everyone likes to get drunk, fight, and make children. Fighting, wrestling, and "punching out" each other replace the stereotypical hand-raised expression "How"?

Although he does have make-up on, it's obvious Elvis is healthier than he appeared in prior films; possibly, he was getting ready for his famous "comeback". It couldn't have been because this movie's script was anything to get excited about. Joan Blondell trying to seduce Elvis, and Burgess Meredith in "war paint", should be ashamed.

The best song is "Stay Away" (actually, "Green Sleeves" with different lyrics). The most embarrassing song is Elvis' love song to the bull "Dominic". There are some surreal scenes, but it never becomes trippy enough to succeed in that genre; though, "Stay Away, Joe" might provide some laughs if you're in the right "mood".

Otherwise, stay away.

** Stay Away, Joe (1968) Peter Tewksbury ~ Elvis Presley, Burgess Meredith, Joan Blondell


There's so many negative reviews about "Stay away, Joe" in here I just can't stay quiet any longer and let this injustice happen. Here's a side you haven't heard yet.

Elvis Presley's movies are my guilty pleasure for a simple reason: they are perfect films for a pure relaxation because I don't have to think when I watch them. That means I don't have to worry about missing a complex plot because there never is a proper plot to start with. I can just kick off my shoes, grab a beer, sit back, switch off my brains and enjoy all the general wackiness and catchy easy-going rock n' roll tunes from the grooviest decade of them all.

In my books "Stay away, Joe" definitely falls into the "so bad it's good"-category. Now if you're like me and appreciate "the trash value", this is the ultimate 1960's camp experience. It's so bad that it's almost surrealistic to watch and just when you think that it can't possibly get any worse it surprises you in the most imaginable ways. In the end you're so amazed by all the new levels of stupidity you just don't know whether to laugh or cry. In a nutshell: I love it because it's so damn amusing that there once was a generation that actually made films like this. I still give it 1 out of 10 though - once it hits the bottom 100 it will became an instant bad movie classic.


This movie is not very good.In fact, it is the worst Elvis movie I have seen.It has very little plot,mostly partying,beer drinking and fighting. Burgess Meredith and Thomas Gomez are wasted. I don't know why they did this movie.You could say Elvis was wasted as well,he is much,much better in "Follow That Dream."


It's been a looooonnnggg time since I saw this comedy, and I'd forgotten just how idiotic it is. I'd place this easily in the lower two or three of Elvis Presley's very worst movies. Presley plays Joe Whitecloud, a half-breed Indian bull rider who returns home to Arizona and the broken-down shack where his family lives, and where his friends love to party all night long. His parents are played by Burgess Meredith and Katy Jurado, and his old Indian grandpa is Thomas Gomez. None of the three offer anything of substance , comically or otherwise. The government has invested in the family's cattle, but they're lacking a bull. Elvis gets to sing just a few utterly worthless songs, and is pursued by a young boy-crazy gal and her gun-toting mother. This is just a real slapdash of a mess, and the dilapidated surroundings practically stink of manure and don't make this much easier. The one thing that puzzles me, however, is that Elvis actually seems to be having a good time in the film. Hard to believe, considering he got so upset about being stuck making so many mediocre movies.


After a few lean years, 1968 was a pretty swell time for Elvis: not only did he make that celebrated "Comeback" TV Special but he also became a father and starred in two pretty decent movies as well  SPEEDWAY and LIVE A LITTLE, LOVE A LITTLE. Therefore, personally I can forgive him for the misstep that was STAY AWAY, JOE which, at best, emerges as an interesting misfire and is not all that bad considering. Sure, Burgess Meredith and Joan Blondell are indeed embarrassing  as, respectively, a dopey Indian father to Elvis' character and a bawdy bartender who has her eye on Mr. Presley too - but one is glad to see Elvis surrounded by top veteran Hollywood talent like Katy Jurado (as Meredith's Mexican wife), the two Jones  Henry and L.Q. - and Thomas Gomez who is particularly amusing as sarcastic Chief Thundercloud who is Meredith's stubborn father still donning his old chieftain clothes in the present day!

While there is a surprising (if not unwelcome given their usual blandness) lack of songs, there seems to be no shortage of free-for-all parties were the male Indians hit the bottle steadily while Presley practices his womanizing skills behind their backs! As can be expected, the typically 'Western' Arizona scenery is a major asset here and the sleepy, snoring bull gag is not only a good one but a major plot point. On the other hand, the climactic 'destruction of the house' episode is one we've seen too often since and doesn't work too well here...


A squashy slapstick mess posing as a comedy. Elvis Presley plays an Indian bull-riding champ who leaves the rodeo for a stay at home on his folks' desert-spread in Arizona, where government suits have just invested in the family's herd of cattle (which is in dire need of a stud). What director Peter Tewksbury is in dire need of is some narrative skills, though what he lacks in assessment he makes up for in sloppy comedic montages (his social commentary isn't exactly pointed, but Tewksbury does have a satiric bend to his outlandishness and there are some funny scenes). Despite colorful supporting turns by Katy Jurado and Joan Blondell, the general wackiness gets way out of hand, and there's too much hoopin' and hollerin' to sustain much interest. As for Elvis, he's loose and frisky throughout--and while it's nice to see him having fun on-screen, one has to wonder if he had just given up on movies at this point. This shambles of a picture has a distinct what-the-hell feel to it, and though spirits are high, the returns are mostly low. *1/2 from ****


OK, the portrayal of the stereotyped 'indians' in this story is just plain WRONG. I do agree that Elvis looks rather good here, but yeah, his skin color does seem to change during the movie. I was thinking, OK,...he was never THAT tan in real life. It's some of the most obvious brown 'indian' makeup that I have ever seen. It's as bad as the 'indians' on 'F-Troop' and the old Hollywood westerns who were played by Jewish and Italian American actors and not real Native Americans!

This movie is o.k., but typically lame story and mediocre songs, like in all of Elvis' later films. He just did them because Colonel Parker had him tied down to long term movie contacts to squeeze as much money out of Elvis as possible! I keep thinking 'thank God' that Elvis stopped making movies forever not long after this movie came out. It is cool to see character actors Joan Blondell, Katy Jurado, L.Q. Jones, Henry Jones and Burgess Meredith in this movie, though.

Burgess Meredith's 'indian' makeup is absolutely AWFUL. It's The worst of the bunch for sure. What were the filmmakers thinking? Was Mr. Meredith doing this one just for the money or what? I do love certain Elvis movies, though. For example: 'Love Me Tender', 'Jailhouse Rock', 'Viva Las Vegas'. I can even stand to watch his movie with future TV co-stars Mary Tyler Moore and Ed Asner,'Change Of Habit' in which Elvis plays an inner-city doctor.

Oh well, at least Elvis made a FEW good films, but the mediocre and bad ones overwhelm the decent and good ones.

I'll always love ELVIS! Thank you, Thank you very much!


Without question, the worst ELVIS film ever made. The movie portrays all Indians as drunk, stupid, and lazy. Watch ELVIS's skin change color throughout the film.


Some here have commented that this is the WORST Elvis movie ever made. Well, they are only partly right. For me, this IS THE WORST MOVIE EVER MADE PERIOD! I have never seen anything so basely crude, and insulting, and vile, and against human nature as this film. A true embarrassment to the Motion Picture Industry, this isn't even so Bad, its good. There is no campy trashy fun to be had here like in some of Elvis' other bad movies like Clambake. This one is so rotten to sit through its painful. Pure Garbage. Native Americans should sue for their poor clichéd and stereotypical treatment here. Actually, perhaps ALL Human Beings should sue for the crime and disservice this movie does to the species as a whole 0 Stars, seriously. Grade: F


As a true Elvis fan, this movie is a total embarrasment and the script is a disaster. The movie opens with the beautiful son "Stay Away" and the scenery of the Grand Canyon gives the viewer hope of something special. Elvis gets in the picture and his talent is wasted big time, especially on the rest of the featured songs. I sat through this movie twice, just to make sure it is a piece of junk!!! 1 out of 10!!!


Susan Seidelman seems to have had a decent career with a few top notch credits under her belt. I'm certainly glad she bounced back from this film which seems to have its admirers. I'm not one of them.

I've seen better acting in high school plays than I did in Smithereens. The plot such as it is involved young Susan Berman who is ambitious to make it in the world of music and is willing to do just about anything to get there. She even rejects the sincere advances of a young artist who is living out of his van off the East River played by Brad Rijn.

Young Mr. Rijn contributes the worst performance in the film, in fact one of the worst acting jobs I've seen in a long time. No wonder he's not gone anywhere.

I will say that Seidelman's eye for the camera is a good one in capturing the familiar East Village locations where the film was mostly shot. But her work with her live performers didn't measure up. I'm not sure she had that much raw material to work with.

Look fast and you'll see a very young Christopher Noth before Law and Order and Sex in the City as a street hustler.

If you like punk rock, you might sit through this for the soundtrack. I'll stick to Bing Crosby.


A rating of "1" does not begin to express how dull, depressing and relentlessly bad this movie is.


"Smithereens" is the kind of worthless flick which just hangs out among the cable channels taking up space like a cheesy dime novel in the public library. A worthless bit of tripe and first effort for mediocre director Seidelman, the film is fraught with bad acting, bad sound, bad camera work, and poor quality in all aspects of the film. Many better films never make it to market and why junk flicks like this one do and never seem to go away is one of life's great mysteries. (D-)


The reviewer from Poland must be a feminist, for she finds "Young Catherine" to be a great film and historically accurate. Nothing could be further from the truth. As a practicing Russian historian for many, many years I took exception with YC at almost every turn, and in particular the politically correct depiction of her as the boss who single-handed moved Russia into a direction of dominance. The truth? She was only brought to St.Petersburg to be a wife and mother, and found she had to "bond" with the dvoriane, the boyars, and the military just to survive. So long as she did not challenge them she was able/ permitted to indulge her cultural wishes (filling up the Hermitage with art treasures, etc.). There are so many proofs that she was not "great," but in this area of post-modern revisionism proof is not very popular. YC is only a costume drama, a bit of fluff from Ted Turner that, like "Peter the Great" in 1986, is one more example of how badly Russia is portrayed in the West.


Vovochka is your everyday hooligan vs authority movie. Vovochka, the main character, is branded early as a bad influence on the children in the neighborhood. With the words of wisdom from a couple of grownups he meets along the way, he finds changing his mischievous ways hard, yet worthy of doing. Personally, I found actor who played Vovochka too annoying to sympathize with, however the change of tone of the movie would allow most to feel the emotional struggle Vovochka has when he wants to be good but bad things still happen. This struggle makes the movie a little different than other movies of the same genre, that's the little flavor I meant. All in all, I did not really care for this movie, although it was most likely aimed for a younger audience.


I can't believe that in the 34 prior comments, nobody mentioned that this film is a blatant rip-off of Born Yesterday. A man is hired to bring an ostensibly dumb blonde up to the requirements of a gangster. Hired gun and blonde fall in love and live happily ever after. Gangster is left in the lurch. But Born Yesterday was an intelligent treatment whereas this is just so much fluff. Technicolor transfer to DVD is deplorable. Natalie Kalmus would be rolling over in her grave. Check out the paperboy. Recognize him? But, it's historically interesting to see the roots of Rock 'n Roll. Also interesting is Ewell's introduction to CinemaScope, a new format at the time.


There are two kinds of 1950s musicals. First you have the glossy MGM productions with big names and great music. And then you have the minor league with a less famous cast, less famous music and second rate directors. 'The Girl Can't Help It' belongs to the latter category. Neither Tom Ewell or Edmond O'Brien became famous and Jayne Mansfield was famous for her... well, never mind. Seems like every decade has its share of Bo Dereks or Pamela Andersons. The plot itself is thin as a razorblade and one can't help suspect that it is mostly an attempt to sell records for Fats Domino, Little Richard or others of the 1950s rock acts that appear in the movie. If that music appeals to you this is worth watching. If not, don't bother.


A singularly unfunny musical comedy that artificially tries to marry the then-cutting edge rock 'n' roll explosion with the middle-class sensibilities of a suburban sitcom. The result is a jarringly dated mish-mash that will satisfy none of the audience that went for the music, but will at least keep their parents sated.

A quick glance at the promo write-up on the back of the video release should give some idea of the content. Tom Ewell is a drunken agent, overplayed with so little comic ability you almost expect him to bellow "hi honey, I'm home!" The blurb sites him as "So funny in 'The 7 Year Itch'". It sounds almost like an excuse. What other film would sell itself on the fact that a leading player was good in something else? It reads like "So funny in 'The 7 Year Itch' ... but he's rubbish in this".

Mansfield, a beautiful girl with rumoured 50-inch assets, is, unfortunately, a bargain basement Monroe with all the acting ability and comic timing of a rotting haddock. Her wooden delivery combined with Ewell's OTT double-takes make this a comedy partnership from Hell. For her part, the sell gives us: "[Jayne Mansfield] whose more obvious talents are the cause of many of the film's biggest laughs!" As you can see, a movie sold on the idea that it's lead has a big chest is not the most sophisticated of things. Most of this "humour" is men literally falling over themselves, their glasses cracking upon site of Mansfield, etc. Only the Freudian nightmare of a milk bottle overflowing casts doubt upon its "U" certificate.

For the musical side, the most adenine of players are chosen. Would you really care to see Eddie Fontaine offer: "I love your eyes, I love your lips, they taste even better than potato chips" in a song called "Cool It, Baby"? Only the incendiary Little Richard breaks out of the MOR, though is forced to sing some of his more dad-friendly songs in a four-minute sequence. And how come all the acts sing without a single microphone? Attempted satires on the industry are broad and childlike in their conception.

Technically, the picture was quite advanced, with special effects (including a ghost-like Julie London) and deluxe color (Which now looks flat and artificial. In fact, with its reds that bleed and fake-looking flesh tones, it resembles a colorised movie). Direction, though, isn't outstanding, and the sound quality is also quite poor.

Perhaps it comes down to it being so old. A time when men still smoked on screen, sickeningly cute child actors made adult remarks and black servants only got to cook and dance. (All of which happen here). Yet Some Like It Hot, The African Queen, Ben Hur and many, many more stand as examples of films from the period that can still be enjoyed today, so the "good at the time" argument doesn't really stand up. At its heart The Girl Can't Help It is a cynical and patronising venture that doesn't bear close inspection. 4/10.


This is a dry and sterile feature filming on one of most interesting events in WWII and in history of warfare behind the front line. Bad drama composition is worst about this film as plot on killing Hitler suppose to be pretty dramatic event. There is no character development at all and idea that Tom Cruise suppose to play a high rank commander that questions his deepest inner thoughts on patriotism and treason is completely insane. I believe that Mister Bin would play it better. Generally speaking, film pretty much looks as a cheep copy of good German TV movie "Stauffenberg" from 2004, but can't get close to that film regarding any movie aspect whatsoever. However, movie obviously gets its financial goal with pop-corn audience that cherishes Hollywood fast-mood blood and shallow art values.


Recipe for one of the worst movies of all time: a she-male villain who looks like it escaped from the WWF, has terrible aim with a gun that has inconsistent effects (the first guy she shoots catches on fire but when she shoots anyone else they just disappear) and takes time out to pet a deer. Then you got the unlikable characters, 30 year old college students, a lame attempt at a surprise ending and lots, lots more. Avoid at all costs.


Well, I had to be generous and give this a 2. This was mainly due to the gratuitous holes cut in that lady's shirt where her breasts are. I found that mildly amusing. Other than that, this movie does nothing more than provide a few good laughs with a friend. Funny if you're willing to throw "mystery science theatre" comments at it with someone, but it ain't no better than a 2. And a 2 pretty much sucks.


For the initial 20 minutes or so (I was watching it on a PS2 so I've really no idea how long it took) Alienator sets up an interesting premise. I don't think I've seen a slasher movie with an alien from another planet as the baddie before. However, interest soon turns into stunned disbelief as you realise the 'alien' is a huge body-builder woman in a steel bikini. Yes, Alienator is patently ridiculous.

Don't think I hold that against it. In the world of shlock-horror, patently ridiculous can often be a good sign. However, the blatant stupidity of its premise is all the movie really has going for it. Alienator is funny as hell, but it is also a shambolic suckfest of the highest order. Actors heap on failed attempts at seriousness, potentially genius lines of pure cheese dialogue are stumbled over with unnerving incompetence and the direction fails to sum up even one or two decent set-pieces. By the time the movie's finished you can barely see the original concept through the haystack of total tripe the team piled on it.

Add to this the fact that the 'Alien' just kills people by vaporising them, as opposed to doing any 'slashing' as such and you have a giant throbbing heap of good ideas being left to rot. You'll laugh at Alienator, but AT it, not with it. If that's your thing then go ahead and check it out.


Throw this lame dog a bone. Sooo bad...you may watch anyway. Kol(Ross Hagen)is an intergalactic bad guy that escapes being vaporised by an over zealous spaceship commander(Jan-Michael Vincent). Kol manages to steal a shuttle that crash lands on Earth. An unstoppable android killer is sent to bring back the villain dead or alive. John Phillip Law plays a forest/park ranger that urges caution in dealing with these two visitors from far, far away. Costumes are outrageous and the script is lacking intelligence. Vincent surely took the money and ran. Law shows the only sign of effort.So bad it is almost comical. Also in the cast: Dyana Ortelli, P.J. Soles and Dawn Wildsmith.


Kol, space prisoner on space death row, manages to hijack a space shuttle and escape to the woods of America where he, along with some new found friend try to escape from the 'Alienator" a female cyborg killing machine. Made one year after the best movie of Fred Olen Ray's career, "Hollywood Chainsaw Hookers", this one can't help but feel like a bit of a letdown. Just as low-budget as that earlier film, but not nearly as fun as I had with it. None of the actors really stood out at me. The film is alright for the undiscriminating viewer during a rainy Saturday afternoon, but that's pretty much all it's good for.

My Grade: D+

Where i saw it: Showtime Thriller


Music that grinds on the nerves like fingernails on a blackboard, acting that is so zombielike it was a shame to waste the cast by not making a second movie; casting everyone in it as true zombies---with the cast of Sabrina the Teenaged Witch as the heroes... a movie so downright awful that if "stoners" were still around it might be considered a cult movie---but, oh so amateurish, the scripts might as well have been carried around by the actors, their lines read as they slowly shuffled through the movie---banal, illogical sets modeled after LA subdivisions, props straight from ToysRus! Was a movie ever made that is so completely and totally inept??? Logic flies to the wind in this plodding, senseless, pointless and with a "monster" so stupid and uncoordinated that it couldn't catch a turtle in an icebox---lowcut, leggy---and amazon! It kept my attention all the way through; the way a terrible, ongoing chain accident in the fog involving multiple vehicles keeps one watching to the very end... as, after a ridiculous ray-gun fight in a prison on another planet, a pneumaticaly-disadvantaged sexy and mentally unbalanced bounty hunter chases a retarded extra-terrestrial fugitive---TO EARTH! Don't let anybody p**s on your popcorn, you might actually enjoy watching this one. It's that bad!


Intergalactic criminal Kol (Ross Hagen) has been sentenced to death and awaits execution on a spaceship designed for just such a purpose. But tonight there's going to be a jailbreak, and Kol flees on a conveniently-placed escape pod and flies towards Earth (which apparently is nearby). There he confronts a group of "teenagers" (who look thirty) and a game warden (John Phillip Law), who help protect him from his worst nightmare... the bounty hunter and executioner android (or more properly "gynoid") the Alienator.

From the cover of the box, I was confident this was going to be an awful movie. But, as awful as it turned out to be, it was a ton of fun as well (probably at least partially because I was watching it with someone who happens to be intensely awesome). The director (Fred Olen Ray), who has specialized in making over one hundred low-grade films (most notably "Hollywood Chainsaw Hookers"), does what he does best and throws together a plot that only half makes sense and gives us rudimentary special effects. Bonus: P.J. Soles appears (as "Tara"), obviously at a low point in her career.

Sure, there's plot holes. Why are there hillbilly rednecks in California (allegedly Los Angeles County if I understood the warden correctly). What's up with the space woman's tacky blouse? Why is there a subplot about the ship captain forcefully trying to win her heart when this story goes nowhere? What the heck is "Quadrant 5"? How does chicken wire create an electromagnetic field that will short-circuit an android, yet land mines do virtually nothing? Why does Kol look like a drunk, Native American football player with emphysema? And the Lund guy (Robert Clarke)... does his character even have a point? Does the game he plays with the captain have a point? Does this movie have a point? But the biggest mystery is the android (or gynoid) the Alienator, played by Teagan Clive. What is an "alienator"? Why does it look like Daryl Hannah from "Blade Runner", only much larger? Because, see, if something is a cyborg, it's part human. But if it's an android, it's all machine. This was an android, so there was no reason to make it look human. It could have looked like anything. Yet, the person who designed her made her the size of a linebacker, with David Bowie's hair and a leotard that shows me just a little too much. If you're going to make a female android, wouldn't the purpose be to have her be seductive and lure enemies in? Mission not accomplished. They say beauty comes in all shapes and sizes, but I think I found a huge exception.

If "Mystery Science Theater 3000" were still around today, this film would be on a very short list of movies that need to get harangued.

Beyond the butt-nasty Alienator (sorry, Teagan, female weight lifters are gross) the film is alright. Maybe there's not much of a story and maybe the characters aren't really very interesting. And maybe the scene with the deer is incredibly adorable for no particular reason -- what use does a killer robot have with a deer? But overall, I actually liked the movie. I won't be pimping it out to my friends or running out to my local video store to pick up the latest DVD copy (which I'm sure is just packed with amazing special features -- not). But I consider seeing this movie time well spent and look forward to similar adventures in the future.


Typically terrible trash from director Fred Olen Ray about a female cyborg hunter(Teagan)commissioned by Warden Jan-Michael Vincent to find and execute escaped alien convict Ross Hagen who has charted course for earth. Soon Forest Ranger John Phillip Law will have to protect a group of obnoxiously hammy college kids headed by the grating Richard Wiley who ran over Hagen with his RV on a camping trip gone awry. Soon the cyborg will be blasting away with her arm laser burning one innocent alcoholic Doctor(Robert Quarry of Count Yorga-Vampire fame)proving that no one will stand in it's way of retrieving the hide of the convict, whose collar is a tracking device that weakens his body. Law finds an ally in Leo Gordon, an old Vietnam war vet with way too weapons stashed in his cabin.

Perhaps intentionally made awful, this features what fans of "rancid cinema" yearn for..dreadful special effects, acting, and premise. At least, the film has PJ Soles for some eye candy..even in '89, she was quite smokin'. That laser gun sure is funny..it can incinerate some houses yet when the Cyborg shoots at Law it barely leaves a mark on the location fired.


This is almost the worst film you will ever see! 2012 Doomsday currently pulls the rug from under this one, for me. The props are a perfect example of what Frank Zappa once referred to as 'cheepnis.' It looks as if the space scenes were made in a 1950s power station, just prior to demolition. The music really sucks. The acting is wooden and ham. The characters they portray are shallow and unconvincing. The plot is predictable. It is immediately and brazenly obvious when they copy techniques and ideas from other films. The quality of direction beggars belief.

But you have to see it, if only to experience what has to be one of the biggest wastes of a tiny budget ever. This is a priceless example of a stupid movie!


I don't what that other review was talking about. This definitely isn't a bimbo movie, in fact, I don't think there was one decent looking girl in it. No, it's just cheesy, poorly-done, Ed Wood-style science fiction schlock. And it's bad. I can't even begin to tell you how bad it is. I saw it late at night on cable, and I was in shock. The fact that this movie was ever released is an insult to us all. The actors were either friends of the producer or mentally retarded, the special effects are a joke, and the pace is insanely slow. To me though, the music tops it all. A monkey could write a better theme with a toy xylophone. Do not rent this thing, but if you ever see it on cable, watch it. You'll be amazed at how bad a movie can be.


I saw the movie late one night on cable and could not believe how bad it was. I usually enjoy bad movies, but this one was so revolting that it wasn't even entertaining. Some of the highlights of this film include the absurd music which is constantly playing throughout the movie, the hideous special effects (when someone is shot with a laser gun they turn neon green and promptly disintegrate), and the disgusting acting. The acting, in fact, is what I feel steals the show. I didn't recognize any of the actors in the movie, and I hope that I never have to see any of them again. Overall, I recommend renting this movie (if you can find it; I can't imagine a video store carrying this garbage) just so that you can learn to appreciate quality films after seeing this trash.


Nothing can prepare you for another lousy bimbo outing! This time, it's being brought to you by the never-inevitable Fred Olen Ray! As far as exploitation movies go, this one doesn't click! As science fiction, it's plain unoriginal! All that we see is an an ugly feminine android wearing a bikini out to destroy the Earth, and showing off all that's nearly bare to resist! Give me a f---ing break!!! If this kind of entertainment is your thing, then why not dust off those old SI swimsuit mags from the attic for a change?! This would have been much better if it didn't set the sleaze factor on very high, but that still wouldn't make this one great. I'd like to point out another film called THE ASSAULT (1996) by Jim Wynorski, which resembles the identity of ALIENATOR. It illustrates why top-notch 1st-person "femme fatale" action movies don't translate well in America. Sorry, fellas!


What happened? 'Doubt' had so much potential to be a brilliant film - but instead it faltered with a dragging simplistic plot line which made me want to stop watching. The only thing the film had going for it was the brilliance of Meryl Streep, who no DOUBT deserved the Oscar-nomination. Though it was not one of her best performances, she still gave a solid and truthful character to us which blossomed through the screen.

However, not even the brilliance of a screen legend could save this film from going down hill. From the boring start, which had no power or punch - to the less than convincing ending, the film was truly a disappointment - especially since it provided so much potential through its promotion and trailers. It was obvious the director had trouble with the simplicity of the plot and he ended up with a boring film, which dragged on for too long, with too much talk and not enough action.

Furthermore, the other Oscar-nominations were less than convincing. Though Philip Seymour Hoffman gave a decent performance, it was by no means Oscar-worthy. (Especially since they completely left out performances such as Will Smith, in Seven Pounds). Amy Adams did not deserve the nomination. Watching Amy Adams was like watching a cardboard box - as it was one sided and plain. It would have made more sense to nominate her for a Razzie, as I am sure she would have walked away victorious. Viola Davis gave a short but truthful performance, but the length of her performance made me question whether the academy really should have given her the nomination.

Overall, I consider Doubt to be one of the most disappointing films of 2008. It was a mess of a film with so much potential, and I do not recommend it. The only shining light in the film is Meryl Streep, who though gives a stunning, solid performance - doesn't even do enough to save this film. *** / 10.


OK, I am blessed. I have seen two very strong stage productions, the one in New York with the original cast, and another at the San Diego Rep (Rosina Reynolds and Monique Gaffney, you rock!). Compared to either of these the movie is almost unwatchable. I've been plodding through the DVD for the past two evenings and am still not finished. Way too much extraneous dialog, and waaay too many added scenes and people. Yes, the four major performances are quite good, esp. Ms. Streep's. But comparing stage to film is definitely an example of "less is more." The thickening of the play to satisfy film-goers' need for scenic variety and specificity was a poor choice. Please, please, please go find a stage production somewhere near you.


The Oscar season has arrived so this means a slew of these deep, engaging, powerhouse ensemble films are all over the movie theaters in hopes of gaining an audience and having the opportunity to earn Best Picture in the big show. Among them is this film that is based off a very popular and well-acclaimed play. The original playwright was actually the writer and director of the film adaptation; which comes as a double-edged sword. On one hand, who better to translate the play than the original writer? On the other hand, who better to not see the mistakes and drawbacks of the play and fix upon them than the original writer himself? Doubt mixes excellent acting and plenty of tension and suspense; with a frustrating ending, unnecessary dialogue, questionable directing, and of course, the inability to provide substantial answers. It is a growing trend among these "high-caliber" films to not answer all questions it provides, and this has to stop.

Doubt is like a joke without its punch line, like a book with the final 20 pages missing, like losing reception while watching the fourth quarter of a hotly contested football game, and like not having the 50 cents to continue playing the arcade game and see what happens next. Doubt, just like the previous Best Picture frustrationfest No Country For Old Men, doesn't really end; it doesn't provide us with considerable answers nor does it deliver enough for us to figure out the ending. Yes, that was the intent, but this isn't a test of humanity, it's a cop-out. I do not pay money to see an unfinished work, I pay money to see a beginning, middle, and end, and pray that I don't fall asleep during the three acts. We are forced to become the "writers" of the movie by filling in the blank ourselves as to what happened before and what will happen to the characters we saw screaming at each other.

This little drama is about a nun (Meryl Streep) who seems very sure that the well-beloved priest (Philip Seymour Hoffman) is making sexual advances towards a child that goes to the church; the first African-American boy in the Catholic church. The church is secretly torn as to whether or not he really is committing heinous sins behind everyone's backs. The plot thickens as some of the kids begin behaving differently, which attracts the notice of a young teacher (Amy Adams). The story is set right after the assassination of John F. Kennedy, which shook the nation for quite some time and questioned their faith in humanity and in each other.

Doubt's strong points come in the acting ensemble and also the ever-engaging suspense that builds slowly and never boils over. Streep seems to be Oscar-worthy in every role she's in, and here she is no different as her sternness and cold-hearted behavior places a blanket of fear in all the students and with some of the staff in the church. Hoffman excels yet again as the priest, by successfully meshing suspicion with a charming personality and a friendly aura. The seemingly hypocritical personality is tough to pull off, especially when we are suppose to like him and also ponder about him at the same time; but Hoffman steps up to the plate against one of the best actresses of our generation and fantastically delivers. When these two argue, you can hear the fireworks fly without ever seeing one launched. But let's not forget Amy Adams (Enchanted) and Viola Davis (Law ad Order) for their superb job either. Doubt's casting ensemble is among the best in 2008.

Yet, like previously stated it's the writing and directing that ruins this film, especially when dwindling down the third act. Questions pop up, but they aren't answered. Characters pop up, but provide no real enhancement towards the plot. Kids behave different, but we never truly find out why. There are awkward angles in the camera-workandthere's no actual reason why. John Patrick Shanley, the writer of the play, had one previous film in his directing repertoire: Joe Versus the Volcano. Whether sheer arrogance or stupidity, we are stuck with seeing overdrawn sequences of random conversation, utter annoying chatter that bores to no end (There was a two minute discussion about coffee and how much sugar the priest wanted) thanks to Mr. Shanley.

Bottom Line: The lack of an ending is a stupid trend that's just as irritating as the seizureific camera-work in action films. It doesn't matter that we have a great talented acting cast, or decent cinematography, or a good story being worked upon, or good usage of sound and music; because we have a barrage of unanswered questions that sprinkles all over a film that is over 100 minutes yet doesn't even finish! The translation from play to film is good and quite accurate, because we have the original madmen behind the projectbut he took the mistakes and stupid hiccups from the play to the film as well. This decade has seen its share of blockbuster and high-profile films that could have gotten a much higher score from me if they had just decided to add a few more minutes of footage and actually end: Sideways, Cast Away, No Country For Old Men, Burn After Reading are a few examples.

Newsflash: end your stinkin' movie. Please or at least provide a good amount of clues for us to easily fill in the blank (like Wall-E's depressing backstories), instead of staring into space as the credits suddenly start rolling and you are left with a feeling of emptiness, confusion, and mental anguish. Have a beginning, middle, and the end please!! As a critic, I prefer my films to be whole, not incomplete. Doubt feels incomplete, which is why it gets an incompetent grade.

Someone has to break this stupid trend.


I am not one of those people that will walk out of a movie that was based on source material and automatically say, "The book was better." I know better than to demote the value of a movie just because it wasn't a faithful adaptation. There is a lengthy process and lots of decisions that go into making a movie that are sometimes out of the director's/editor's/cinematographer's/producer's control and certainly out of the original author's control. Therefore, it is unreasonable to expect a movie to be exactly the same, word for word, as a book or play or video game or Disneyland Ride, or whatever! A movie should be judged on its own standard and how it fits in society. Moreover, a successful movie should be made because the material is relevant to the society which it belongs and, if it is based on source material, its relevance needs to be reexamined and enhanced by the filmmakers.

Films like There Will Be Blood follow this paradigm because while it was based on a novel written at the turn of the century, Oil!, it feels relevant because of things like the Iraq war and energy concerns that the film's country of origin, the US, was and is experiencing. Even King Kong, based on the original film, benefits from using new technology and concerns of animal rights that people have.

With that said, I just don't understand why they even bothered to make this movie? Besides the great performances, guaranteed Oscar nods and Shanley's director/writers fee and royalties he will get, this movie seems to come from nowhere. It should have simply stayed as a play. The movie (which is essentially the same as the play) says nothing new about the reprehensible sexual atrocities committed and in many cases covered up by the Catholic church here and abroad. It says nothing new or different than the original play. I can't help but compare this movie to another movie that came out at around the same time: Frost/Nixon, which was also based on a play. Frost/Nixon, while about Nixon's regrets, seems relevant because it seems to have come at a time when President Bush was about to leave office. The regrets that Nixon had, as depicted in the play/movie, about the war and his presidency could just as easily reflected on Bush and his presidency. In that respect Frost/Nixon seemed more relevant and actually benefited from a wider distribution via film because it got people talking and reflecting about the political status quo in the country at the time. In contrast, Doubt felt like it was yesterday's news and didn't seem to offer anything that the play didn't offer.

Of course the movie is "good," the performances are outstanding, and the screenplay adaptation is apt, but so what? Why didn't it just stay as a play? Why, besides marketing and financial reasons, make it into a movie? It gave audiences nothing new to discus about the awful subject.


I did not really want to watch this one. It seemed to be an old Raj Kanwar movie which disgusted me even before I started watching it because I don't consider him even close to being mediocre as a filmmaker. The only reason I took this one is obviously the Shahrukh Khan appearance in the film. I had not even known what the film was all about because I was sure it would be just an ordinary fairy tale. So I just imagined a love story between Shahrukh Khan and Divya Bharti with a substantial supporting role by Rishi Kapoor who I thought would be playing her father or uncle. And to my complete shock, Rishi Kapoor is actually the hero! He is the one who romances the young Divya! I was saddened to find out that Shahrukh had a small part of no substance and that too, only in the second part of this idiotic film.

Just let me repeat the question: why would a 17 year-old lovely Divya have fallen for a 40-plus long haired, chubby, swollen piglet like Rishi Kapoor? Rishi Kapoor should be ashamed of taking this part; the only thing he did is ridiculing himself. He romanced a girl who could logically be younger than his own daughter and to make things worse -- acts like a teenager at his forties. On top of that, just to make himself more pathetic, he plays a pop-star...

To make things clear, I have no problems with actors romancing ladies much younger than they themselves are. As long as they make a convincing couple, there should be no problem. In fact, leading actors have always been cast opposite young girls (Amitabh Bachchan-Sridevi, Mithun Chakraborty-Madhuri Dixit, Shahrukh Khan-Deepika, Salman Khan-Sneha Ullal) and made the pairing pretty well. Also, I have nothing against Rishi Kapoor, I think he is a good actor, and his act in Bobby is still well-engraved in my heart, but it's not that he looks in this film like, say, Shahrukh Khan, Salman Khan or Aamir Khan look today.

That was such a disappointment. Oh, and as for the reason every person actually watched this film, Shahrukh Khan made a good debut. He excelled in the very little his part allowed him to do. The late Divya Bharti made a promising debut as well. If you want to watch this film, go for the second half only. Personally, I would not do even that.


Dewaana as a film goes through the usual clichés. Man and Woman fall in love and marry, husband is supposedly killed by a family friend who wants their family fortune, woman remarries and surprise surprise husband no.1 reappears. The movie is reminiscent of Yash Chopra's Chandni and countless others. Divya Bharti and Shah Rukh Khan give good performances. Amrish Puri as a villain goes through the motions and is nothing more than a standard bollywood villain The music by Nadeem Shravan is superb, all the songs were brilliant. My favourites are Sochenge tumhe pyar or Koyi na koyi chahiyye. Dewanna is an ordinary movie that goes through the motions.


I bought this movie because this was Shah rukh khans Debut.And i also liked to see how would he do.I must say he is excellent in his role.Divya Bharathi is superb in this movie.Rishi does a wonderful job.Susham Seth supported well.Alok nath was good in his role.Amrish and Mohnish did their parts well too.Dalip also was good in his small role.Actors shine in a Mediocre movie.The direction is average.The editing is poor.The story is boring.It tells us about Ravi a famous pop singer.He has a lot of female fans.One of them is Kaajal.Ravi and Kaajal fall in love and get married.Ravi gets killed by his cousins.Kaajal becoems a widow..To escape from Ravis cousins.They go to Bombay.She comes across Raja.She falls in love with him and gets married.Ravi returns.The story is predictable.The climax is predictable.The first half bores.It also drags a lot.But it is saved by the actors and music.The second half entertains.The music is catchy with some nice songs.The cinematography looks outdated in the first half but it looks unimaginative.The song picturisations are dull except for "Sochenge Tumhe Pyar" and one rain song.The costumes are outdated.Any way watch this just for the actors and music Rating-4/10


I'm one of the millions of Columbo addicts all over the world and just watched this,the episode that started it all, on British Channel 5. It IS fascinating to think what sprung from this so-so movie and I can only marvel at whoever spotted the massive potential of "Columbo" and added all the little touches that make it such a marvellous & classic series. That said, this particular movie is not as good as the rest (except for the embarrassing final episode & the patronising British episode). If Columbo had been made as per the original 'pilot' it certainly would NOT have gone on for very long, or be watched and loved world-wide. In this film Lt Columbo is smartly dressed, drives a normal car, has a partner, doesn't talk about his alleged relatives and comes across as quite aggressive. There's also none of the cat-and-mouse chemistry between Columbo and "the villain". Watchable, but only for the novelty of seeing how Columbo started out.


I really like slasher movies,but this one is truly awful.The acting is lame,the script is bad,and the atmosphere is non-existent.The plot is as follows:a deformed gardener Charlie Puckett slaughters people in a small American town.That's right-this is the plot.Very original,eh!"The Night Brings Charlie" isn't even gory enough-if the film ain't gonna be scary,at least they should make it bloody.Avoid this cheap piece of trash at all costs.If you want to see some good slasher flicks check out "Madman","The Burning","The Prowler","Just Before Dawn" or "Humongous"- just don't waste your precious time with this worthless piece of garbage.


I rented this movie because I was browsing through the horror movie section for those movies that no one's heard of and could be a possible gem. I saw this and, since I'm a fan of violence and gore, I got it. It got the rating of EM which means: Extremely Mature. Thinking that this rare and high rating was totally meant for violence and everything else, I got it. The warning on the box said: Extreme Violence, Extreme Langauge, and Nudity. The "extreme violence" struck my fancy. The movie ended being a pretty tame slasher flick. It had one or two gory scenes but I've seen worse in a PG-13 movie. Of course the amount of gore in a movie isn't all that counts, right? You have plot also. Well, the plot was boring and there nothing really special about it. Don't rent it. I speak the truth. I can't imagine how someone could really enjoy it to the point where they say: "I'm gonna rent that again." It had it's moments where it kept you going but I'm never going to see that film again.


It really boggles my mind when someone comes across a movie like this and claims it to be one of the worst slasher films out there. This is by far not one of the worst out there, still not a good movie, but not the worst nonetheless. Go see something like Death Nurse or Blood Lake and then come back to me and tell me if you think the Night Brings Charlie is the worst. The film has decent camera work and editing, which is way more than I can say for many more extremely obscure slasher films.

The film doesn't deliver on the on-screen deaths, there's one death where you see his pruning saw rip into a neck, but all other deaths are hardly interesting. But the lack of on-screen graphic violence doesn't mean this isn't a slasher film, just a bad one.

The film was obviously intended not to be taken too seriously. The film came in at the end of the second slasher cycle, so it certainly was a reflection on traditional slasher elements, done in a tongue in cheek way. For example, after a kill, Charlie goes to the town's 'welcome' sign and marks the population down one less. This is something that can only get a laugh.

If you're into slasher films, definitely give this film a watch. It is slightly different than your usual slasher film with possibility of two killers, but not by much. The comedy of the movie is pretty much telling the audience to relax and not take the movie so god darn serious. You may forget the movie, you may remember it. I'll remember it because I love the name.


I'm not a big fan of slasher flicks as a genre, but even by the standards of low-low-budget exploitation, this one is really lame. Even on a nudity-and-gore level, it's incredibly boring (there is some of both, but it's all sort of...meh). Before the home video revolution, it might not even have been released theatrically (though it might have; after all, *Plan 9 From Outer Space* played in theaters). There is precisely one good (and competently-delivered) line in the entire movie; I assume they stole it from somewhere.

The acting is among the worst I have ever seen. I mean, even Ed Wood had a couple of competent actors, and the rest tended to be ludicrously hammy, which can be fun to watch. Anyway, most of his actors could pretty much pass as literate. Here, those who don't read their lines like cigar-store Indians sound like they learned them phonetically. And this film does have one distinction: it manages to be badly underplotted for most of the movie, then laughably overplotted for the ending.

(Update: I should have singled out the actress playing the receptionist as an exception. She is by no means wooden. Not that she's good, but she certainly isn't wooden.)

Even the worst slasher flicks are generally good for a few Puritan meditations on their grotesque offensiveness, but with this one, there doesn't even seem to be anything there to work up a moral outrage about.

And you know the funniest thing? They clearly expected to make a sequel!

It's so bad and boring that it actually becomes fascinating in a weird way. I sat enrapt through much of the video wondering why anyone would go to the bother of making it.


A teenager who seems to have it all commits suicide. It leaves his family and his best friend (Keanu Reeves) asking a lot of questions...and blaming themselves.

Good idea, badly handled. For starters this HAS been done before 1988--mostly in TV movies and After School Specials. Aside from some swearing and dialogue (hence the PG-13 rating) this added nothing new. The outcome is predictable and Reeve's attempts at acting were truly painful to watch. He's good NOW but not in 1988. Aside from that his character was dressed like a slob and always looked so dirty is was hard to build up sympathy.

That aside the movie is dull. I saw every scene coming and every "surprise" was telegraphed. I basically couldn't wait for this thing to get over.

I have a vague recollection of seeing it in a theatre in 1988 and hating it (it bombed BADLY). It still looks lousy almost 20 years later. The subject is worth handling but it's been done better (with better acting) in countless other movies. "Ordinary People" comes to mind. You can skip this one.


Keanu Reeves stars as a friend of a popular high school student who suddenly commits suicide...he and his friends go through emotional turmoil and share their reactions to this horrible incident...Good acting by Reeves and a young Jennifer Rubin..but on the whole is a little too much.. 4 of 10


I picked up this video after reading the text on the box, the story seemed good, and it had Keanu Reeves! But after 5 minutes of watching, I noticed how horrible his acting was, he walks and talks so stupid the whole time, it's fake and not convincing. It doesn't end there, almost ALL the characters act so badly it's laughable, the only acceptable acting was by Alan Boyce (David), but the guy commits suicide early on and you don't see him again, you never even know why he did it! Everything about this movie screams low quality, I can't believe how such a thing gets released! I was tempted many times to stop watching, in fact I did, half way through it I decided to stop watching and turned the thing off, came to the IMDB to check what other's thought about it, I found zero comments (not surprised), so I decided to force myself to handle the pain and go back to finish it then come here to comment on it. The only good thing going (for me) was the high-school Rock band theme, the occasional guitar playing and singing parts, but that's not worth it.

Very bad acting and directing... Terrible movie.


I can't recommend this film as a date movie. Gary Oldman's semi-autobiographical account of life lived on a South East London estate is a violent, Beckettian account of one of Dante's circles of hell, frankly. At the centre of it is Ray Winstone, who has done this sort of character before but never as well. The film opens with him ordering drinks at a pub bar - that's all - and you are already gripped with a sense of the frustration, self-loathing and barbarism that he exhibits in many different ways throughout the course of the movie. It's an acting masterclass.

Of course the stymied and dispossessed need a foil in a drama such as this and Winstone is matched by Kathy Burke as his long-suffering wife, who absorbs and ultimately rejects his unbearable behaviour. Charlie Creed-Miles does an able turn as the fuse-lighting druggie son Billy although he must have wondered sometimes exactly what he let himself in for. Gary Oldman directs close up on the actors, maximising the claustrophobia of their council flat squalor. 4/10


STAR RATING: ***** Saturday Night **** Friday Night *** Friday Morning ** Sunday Night * Monday Morning

Ray (Ray Winstone) has a criminal past, has had problems with alcohol and is now forming a drug habit that is making him paranoid and prone to domestic violence to his wife Valerie (Kathy Burke) who tries to hold the family together but ends up coming off more like a doormat. Meanwhile, her mother Janet (Laila Morse) is aware of Ray's son, Billy (Charlie Creed-Miles) and his escalating drug habit that is sending him off the rails. The film follows these despairable characters as they tredge along with their lives.

It is said that the British seem to enjoy being miserable, and that would include watching films that entertain them this way. Films like Nil by Mouth highlight this. It's a tale of a broken family, torn apart by crime, poverty, booze and drugs, the kind Jeremy Kyle would lap up like a three course meal. It is also essentially a tale of self destructive men, three generations apart and each copying the other, tearing a family apart and women trying to hold it together, despite not being strong enough. If you pick up a little of what it's about from the off-set, you can see it doesn't promise to be cheerful viewing from the start and it certainly doesn't disappoint in this.

It's true what everyone said about the performances, and the lead stars, Winstone and Burke, do deliver some great acting. We see Winstone lose it with his wife, beating her senseless after some more coke induced paranoia, breaking down during a phone conversation with her and unleashing a typical arsenal of f and c words when she refuses to let him see his kid. Likewise, in a private moment, we see Burke skillfully lose her composure on a staircase, the full impact of the night before kicking in.

This is another of those films where there's no 'plot' to follow, as such, just a real life feel of these hopeless lives carrying on from one day to the next. It's been acclaimed by many (including the Baftas!) but it really was just too grim and bleak for me. I have no right to criticize it for this, knowing what I knew about it from the off-set, but sadly this is how I found it. **


I'm not usually one to slate a film . I try to see the good points and not focus on the bad ones, but in this case, there are almost no good points. In my opinion, if you're going to make something that bad, why bother? Part of the film is take up with shots of Anne's face while she breaths deeply, and violin music plays in the background. the other part is filled with poor and wooden acting. Rupert Penry Jones is expressionless. Jennifer Higham plays Anne's younger sister with modern mannerisms. Anne is portrayed as being meek and self effacing, which is fine at the beginning, but she stays the same all through the film, and you see no reason for captain Wentworth to fall in love with her. Overall the production lacks any sense of period, with too many mistakes to be overlooked, such as running out of the concert, kissing in the street, running about in the streets with no hat on (why was this scene in the film at all? the scene in the book was one of the most romantic scenes written.). To sum it up, a terrible film, very disappointing.


I love Jane Austen's stories. I've only read two of them (P&P and S&S), but after having seen this adaption, I'm reaching for "Persuasion" from my bookcase just to make sense out of the story, and also, because I refusing to believe Jane Austen could have written such nonsense. For me, I thought that if you base a film on a Jane Austen novel, you can't really go wrong. It will turn out great pretty much by default. I was wrong.

First of all, where are the characters that you sympathise with and like? You have to have at least one likable character to get the audience to invest their emotions in them, and this did not deliver. Sure, I wanted Anne and Wentworth to get together, but only because that's what you know the purpose of the story is, them getting together. Instead, I had to resist urges to throw my teacup at the TV and to continue watching it to the end.

Anne was utterly annoying throughout, and in the end, I really have no idea why Wentworth was so smitten by her, as there seemed to be nothing there for him to be attracted to. She was meek, bland, dull, socially inadequate and came across like a sheep following everyone else's instructions rather than having a mind of her own. This can still work for a lead character, if you do it well. This wasn't done well.

The other characters were just displaying various degrees of narcissism, of which Mary was the worst, with a full-blown narcissistic personality disorder. Where Mrs. Bennet in P&P had similar flaws, she was still endearing, whereas Mary was more of a freak-show. More loathsome than funny.

Wentworth was very handsome and seemed like a decent kind of guy. For the most part of the story, I was just wondering what kind of person he was and why he's in love with Anne, as surely, he's the kind of guy who would want a person who is a little bit more... alive? Acting-wise, not too much to say, as I reacted more to the characters being portrayed rather than how good/bad the people acting were. Anthony Head was excellent, but as soon as I saw he was in it, I expected no less.

Also found the story very confusing. It wasn't until the end of the movie where it seemed as if Elizabeth was not Anne's stepmother, but in fact a sister (I'm still not 100% on that). The whole Anne/Wentworth back story was also a bit fuzzy. They had been together but then broke up and they're both bitter about it? How come? I was wondering this for quite some time, and the explanation seemed to be she dumped him because she was persuaded to do so by someone? But it was said in a kind of "by the by" way that it was almost missed, as if it was somehow unimportant. How can it be unimportant when it's the very core of the story?? There was also a lot of name-dropping, but no real feel for who the characters were. This Louisa person for instance, who was she? A friend? Family? What? It wasn't made very clear who the different characters are and their relationship with one another. Lady Russell was there a lot, but why? Mrs. Croft and Wentworth were brother and sister, which felt very unrealistic as Mrs. Croft looked old enough to be his mother.

The final kiss, yes it was a bit strange them kissing in the street, but I didn't really think about it, because I was too busy yelling "GET ON WITH IT ALREADY!!" at the TV, because Anne's lips trembled and trembled and trembled for what felt like ages before they actually met Wentworth's. Have SOME hesitation there, but only for a couple of seconds or so, not half a minute.

Then there's the issue of camera work. As a regular movie watcher, you don't pay attention to angles and such unless you decide to look out for it. I didn't decide to do so here, but I still noticed them. To me, that means the filmmakers are not doing a good job. A lot of conversations were with extreme facial closeups, something that should only be used when there's a really important point to be made. In this adaption, it was over-used and therefore lacked meaning. The hand-held feeling on occasion also didn't really work in a period drama. The camera work in the running scene in the end also felt too contemporary. (Not to mention the running itself.) This was the only Austen adaption I caught in ITV's Austen season. Makes me wonder if it's worth watching "Northanger Abbey" and "Mansfield Park" or if I should just read the books and leave it at that. I'm sad to say, this is a Jane Austen adaption I did not enjoy. Maybe I'll watch the 1995 version instead. The BBC are renowned for having done beautiful Austen adaptations before, after all.


My God, was this the "Run, Lola, Run" adaptation of Persuasion? It was horrible. Bad enough that the "screenwriter" (and I use the term very loosely) cut and pasted dialogue from one character onto another, often completely out of context and to rush the story along: but Anne Elliott running from location to location in pursuit of Wentworth near the end of the piece was an abomination! Austen must be spinning in her grave. No respectable young woman would have acted in such an atrocious fashion. And the actress that played Mary? Horrors. Needless to say, if the rest of the Austen remakes are this bad, they will be turning off a new generation of watchers.

If you want to see an impeccable version of this (otherwise) wonderful novel, get the 1995 Roger Michell directed version starring Amanda Root (whose expressions alone can speak volumes) and Ciaran Hinds. It is superb.


I have no idea why they made this version of "Persuasion" when they already had that fine mini-series with Amanda Root and Ciaran Hinds. I suppose that they wanted to make a feature-length version, but of course a lot had to be deleted; alas, what ended up on the cutting-room floor was all the lovely wit and humour, leaving a film that was mere melodrama rather than an amusing exposition of English country manners and mores.

Also, the characters were shallow and uninteresting. They had poor Anne chasing up and down the streets after Captain Wentworth like a silly modern adolescent (and if you happen to be a silly modern adolescent reading this, let me tell you: running after a male like a female in heat is NOT cool). That is something a well-bred woman of the Napoleonic era would never have done, and certainly not this level-headed heroine.

Some have said they found this antic laughable; my reaction was not laughter, but outrage. The very idea of such a corruption of an Austen work is beneath contempt.

It was ghastly.