This is a fascinating film--especially to old movie buffs and historians (I am both). During the first half of the twentieth century, sadly, Black Americans were usually not allowed into White theaters. As a result, theaters catering to Black audiences wanted to show films reflecting the Black experience and showing Black actors. In many cases, the films were essentially similar plot-wise to standard Hollywood fare, but with a much, much lower budget--and usually horrid production values. You really can't fault the film makers--they just didn't have the money and resources available to the average film company. As a result, they had to make due with a lot less--including an over-reliance on stock actors that were seen again and again, no money for re-shooting scenes and a need to get the films done FAST! This film tried very hard to be a Black version of a Gene Autry film--starring Herb Jeffries instead. Jeffries was a light-skinned man from mixed ancestry and he starred in several similar cowboy films. In each, he sings a little, fights a little (though VERY poorly) and loves a little--everything you need in a cowboy. Believe it or not, Jeffries is STILL alive at age 96.

The general plot was indiscernible from an Autry picture--complete with anachronistic items such as telephones out West! The problem is that despite its similarities, the low budget shines through. Stymie (from the Li'l Rascals) flubbed a few lines but they just left it in, the fight scenes were totally unchoreographed and were among the worst ever put on film, there were some odd plot holes, there was no background music (leaving the film strangely quiet) and the acting was pretty awful.

Now this does NOT mean that the film isn't worth seeing--only that it abouts with technical problems that prevent it from being scored higher. One reviewer, oddly, scored this film a 10! How this can be with all the problems is beyond me. However, I can understand a person liking the film despite its many problems. The plot is generally pretty good, the characters likable, the musical numbers excellent and you know that the people making the film tried so darn hard AND it's a very important piece of American history. But a 10!?

By the way, in an odd bit of casting, the very tall, lean and almost white-skinned Jefferies is paired with short, dumpy and exceptionally dark Mantan Moreland....as his brother!! Also, Spencer Williams may be familiar to you. He played Andy on TV's "Amos 'n Andy".


I have to agree with most everyone's opinion that this show was poorly produced as well as written.The acting was not much more above the lower production values however I feel an actor can only rely on the material provided to them and make the best of it. In keeping with this thought I feel it is important to point out that one actor has risen and persevered well beyond this campy to tasteless production to have become a respectable and quite talented performer.I am referring to Laura Harris a Canadian born actor who has etched her way through many poorly produced shows and movies to find a place on the HBO hit "Dead Like Me" where she plays the role of Daisy Adair and to her credit she handles this role in an efficient manner.I remember having a typical boyhood crush on the young actress during this series where she played Ashley a soft spoken yet intelligent 7th grader.I felt as though if anyone might "make it" from this series it surely would be Laura Harris and true to her nature she did excel in the acting field to win the respect of many producers who now recognize her for her talent as well as unique Nordic blond allure. If you ever do have the opportunity to view this series I recommend that you have something epic to watch after wards such as the 'Godfather' or perhaps 'Beaches' in order to remind yourself that there is after all a great deal of true production integrity and value out there and that this series is only a low-budget reminder of what Laura Harris can simply state about her time on the show and I bet she would quote many a young actors words of defense by saying "It's a start!"


In the U.S., very few films have been made about Rome that were not set in the time of Julius Caesar or shortly thereafter. Hollywood's sword and sandal epics mostly have a Christian theme, which makes it difficult to get into earlier Roman history (Spartacus was probably the first exception to this rule, and encountered some resistance in Hollywood because it did not have Jesus in it).

It's interesting to see at least one picture that not only takes place before the time of Caesar and Christ, but is set when Rome was only one city among many on the Italian peninsula, and had just ousted the hated King Tarquin and formed the Republic.

However, this is not a historical film; it's peplum, and while the production values aren't rock bottom, the acting and characterizations are cardboard. I can only imagine what the dialogue was like in Italian, but with wooden English dubbing it's very campy. I got a few good laughs out of it at first.

I haven't seen many films of this genre, having missed most of the Hercules movies of the 60s. It's amusing up to a point, but as the film goes on, it gets somewhat boring.

One thing's for sure: if I'd seen this movie when I was ten years old, I would have loved it. At that age, I went for anything with Romans and swordfights in it. So at least, this flick brought back some childhood memories.


It's hard to imagine that anyone could find this short their favorite if they have seen most of their shorts, but I know that humor is VERY subjective. I have seen all of their sound shorts (by far the best of their stuff IMO) and I found this one of their weaker efforts.

In the year this was made (1930) Stan and Babe made 15 shorts and one feature. They were extremely popular and their boss Hal Roach took full advantage by keeping them working constantly. In addition, this was a time of experimentation for the writers and Stan. I would say this was an experiment that really did not work. As someone else said, it does not play to their strengths. Too much dialog and plot.

The best part of this one for me is the largely improvised sequence with Stan as Agnes the maid and the great Thelma Todd talking about "girl" stuff.

If you really want to see the boys at their most creative and funny check out Blotto, or Brats From the same year.

They made so many shorts in such a short time that I think they can be forgiven for turning out a few less then par shorts. They made something like 108 films altogether. Very few (except for the ones made at FOX) were outright failures but there are some. County Hospital, Me And My Pal, The Live Ghost, The Fixer Uppers come to mind as essentially weak ones. But other then those I find something wonderful in just about all their shorts. Quite a record in my book.

If you have seen and enjoyed all their other shorts then by all means check this one out, but I would be willing to bet that this one was less then memorable to Stan and Babe.


The best Laurel and Hardy shorts are filled to the brim with mishaps, accidents and destruction, mostly caused by Stan, but with Ollie receiving the bulk (!) of the punishment-- see the great 'The Music Box' (1933) or 'Towed in a Hole' (1932) as some some classic examples.

Here, however, for some reason (is it because it was based on a sketch by Stan's father?) the boys play it 'straight' in a 'comedy' built around jokes and supposedly funny situations. It doesn't come off. It's merely another third-rate tedious 30s comedy, heightened only by the personalities of Stan and Ollie who never really display any of their trademarked gestures (Ollie's finger wiggling, Stan's blank stares, etc.) or comic abilities.

The film begins with them running from the police. Since we never see or know why, it's hard to believe or accept their fear of being caught, and thus hiding in Colonel Buckshot's mansion. The premise for the 'humor', Ollie passing himself off as the Colonel and Stan passing himself off as both the butler and the maid are never very engaging. They are not playing 'Stan and Ollie' in this film. Their parts could have been played by any of the pedestrian studio actors and it would be just as poor.

Stan could mime and make whatever he would do funny, but he doesn't get the chance to do any of that here. He's constrained by uttering too much dialog to 'move' the plot, but none of it rises much above the silly. We are treated to endless third rate comedy chestnuts such as the running gag of not correctly pronouncing Lord Plumtree's name, the "Call me a cab! Okay you're a cab!" joke, cops losing their clothes and being seen in long johns, and a non-sequiter ending of Stan and Ollie as the two parts in a painfully obvious horse costume as they make their escape on a bicycle for two, and James Finlayson is still doing his silent-era full body takes and Keystone Kop jumping jacks.

Stan and Ollie do much better in a situation comedy in 'Sons of the Desert'(1933) where we get to see them do what we love about them -- be themselves. In fact, 1932-34 seem to be their best years.

Since this film does not play to any of their strengths, why bother with it? I have to give it a 3.


Because some people, like me, like to know EVERYTHING about a movie even if they plan to see it, including the ending. Anyway, here's the ending as I remember it, because I couldn't have been more than 8 yrs old when I saw it for the first and only time on TV. But I'll tell ya, it sure scared the little kid that I was, and I thought about it for days afterward, and it still stands out in my mind to this day, even though some of the details are a little vague. Abe Vigoda was in this movie? I don't remember that! I didn't even remember that ol' Barnabus was in this movie, and I LOVED Dark Shadows. So, at the end, the lead character (Belinda Montgomery?) is lured by the Judge (Joseph Cotton, I'm guessing, even though I remember it as him being an old family physician or something instead of a judge; see how memory fades?) to the wedding place, which as I remember it is in a cavern of some kind? Maybe I've got that wrong; and Shelley Winters is there laughing, and the Judge has a cape on, and the camera angle is kind of looking up at him, and he throws back the cloak, and he has goat legs, and he announces he's actually her father, the Devil, and she's played right into their (the satanic cult's) hands, because the "mortal" guy she has fallen in love with (I guess that's Robert Foxworth) turns out also to be the guy Satan wants to marry her off to, The Demon with Yellow Eyes, and yep, sure enough, they show Robert Foxworth, and his eyes glow yellow. There are a lot of close-ups in the last few minutes of the film. Everyone is laughing and rejoicing, except for Belinda Montgomery, who is very unhappy, and cries or screams or something, and that's the end. The bad guys win.


Forbidden Siren is based upon the Siren 2 Playstation 2 (so many 2s) game. Like most video game turned movies, I would say the majority don't translate into a different medium really well. And that goes for this one too, painfully.

There's a pretty long prologue which explains and sets the premise for the story, and the mysterious island on which a writer (Leo Morimoto) and his children, daughter Yuki (Yui Ichikawa) and son Hideo (Jun Nishiyama) come to move into. The villagers don't look all too friendly, and soon enough, sound advice is given about the siren on the island, to stay indoors once the siren starts wailing.

Naturally and slowly, things start to go bump, and our siblings go on a mission beating around the bush to discover exactly what is happening on this unfriendly island with its strange inhabitants. But in truth, you will not bother with what's going on, as folklore and fairy tales get thrown in to convolute the plot even more. What was really pushing it into the realm of bad comedy are its unwittingly ill-placed-out-of-the-norm moments which just drew pitiful giggles at its sheer stupidity, until it's explained much later. It's one thing trying to come up and present something smart, but another thing doing it convincingly and with loopholes covered.

Despite it clocking in under 90 minutes - I think it's a horror movie phenomenon to have that as a runtime benchmark - it gives that almost two hour feel with its slow buildup to tell what it wants to. Things begin to pick up toward the last 20 minutes, but it's a classic case of too little too late.

What saves the movie is how it changes tack and its revelation at the end. Again this is a common device used to try and elevate a seemingly simple horror movie into something a little bit extra in the hope of wowing an audience. It turned out rather satisfactorily, but leaves a bad aftertaste as you'll feel cheated somewhat. There are two ways a twist will make you feel - it either elevates the movie to a memorable level, or provides you with that hokey feeling. Unfortunately Forbidden Siren belonged more to the latter.

The saving grace will be its cinematography with its use of light, shadows and mirrors, but I will be that explicit - it's still not worth the time, so better to avoid this.


Is it just me or is that kid really annoying?

Hideos sister, spends most of her time running around after the disobedient little so and so. As for him, well, I know he's a kid n all, but his acting ability is about as wooden as a dead tree. So far I'm only half way through, and am fascinated by the story, but the people in it, let it down, I just hope it gets better by the end, as I can't not know what it's all about. Although, some supposedly cryptic messages in the scribbles on the wall and a notebook, indicate everything is backwards, i.e. Dog is God, Live is Evil etc... just seems a little obvious at the moment, yet nobody mentions its obvious meaning, (As yet anyway) If my opinion changes at the end of the movie, I'll update this post, but if your reading this, then well...... See above statement.


I was fully amped up to see this film. I had been waiting a year for it to be cleared down here in New Zealand. I shouldn't have built myself up so much because it was so disappointing and is without a doubt Clark's worst film There is so much wrong with this film. First off, some of the acting is great, in particular Nick Stahl as 'The Bully', and the girl with the curly brown hair (I can't recall her name), but most of it was so out of touch and incredibly unbelievable, especially Leo Fitzpatrick. He's a veteran of Clark's films now and he was so brilliant in 'Kids', but in 'Bully' he invests his lines with such solemnity as to turn his scenes into a parody virtually. The screenplay felt like it had been written by a first year film student. No sorry, a high school student...one who has never seen a movie before. And I couldn't fathom Clark's intentions. Was he trying to point out the meaningless of these kids' existence? It sure as hell didn't stop him getting in a damn good perv. I'm no prude but I didn't need to see teenage breasts and buttocks every 5 minutes. I still maintain that Clark's best film is 'Another Day in Paradise'. It's fantastic and I don't think he'll ever top it.


It, at all, you have seen when harry met sally, then avoid this one. It will not only make you bang your head on the table as why can't bollywood even make a good remake; but also annoy you with the so called funny moments in it. The charm of the movie is missing. Ranee looks terrible. Saif tries to act like he is one hell of an actor. The plots that have been picked up from the original, don't look effective either. The part where both of them bring their friends along and they hit a note, it just doesn't look appealing. What can be more disastrous? you wanna waste some money, this is what you can get. Otherwise, put some more bucks, and watch the original. Its too good to miss..


If they could get Ed Asner why didn't they get other actors instead of people who go to the same church as the producers? And why did the protagonist throw the wise old sage character to the ground when he was never in danger. It forced the old guy to mask the injury out of pride and so the young guy would feel guilty leaving him with a life long disability. I guess thats why the main character refuses money though and why the old guy works him like a dog even when he volunteers for extra work. If the d-bag boyfriend is a bad guy because he is long-distance boyfriend then why is a soldier any better. He has good reason to be jealous, good reason to get her away from her hometown and over protective, controlling manipulative father. All the characters that are meant to be likable aren't and everyone else is the 'bad' boyfriend. How did they meet anyway, a wine broker and a saw mill worker?


Watched this with my girlfriend after stumbling over it while zaping channels.

I guess we both hoped for some kind of happy family cute Christmas movie, but were extremely disappointed.

the actor playing the soldier, seems to have 0 emotion whatsoever, his face looks the same, whether he's chopping down Christmas tree's, seeing the girl he loves being kissed by her boyfriend, or when he's happily surprised by the girl he loves, he's an awful actor, and at no pont did any of us do nothing but laugh at him.

Then there's the cute blond girl, blessed with the ability to count dot's and cheat on her boyfriend, what a catch! and her ambition in life is to live with her parents and count more dots.

So it's basically a story about a guy without any emotion or feelings who falls for a guy who count dots and cheats on her boyfriend, it's as predictable as it get's, and really a waste of time, you gain nothing by watching this, other than some weird laughs, because it's all so corny.

I love it when her dad says that he only eats french fries and not french wine, and they all laugh, that's the hillbilly attitude this movie is about, furthermore, if my girlfriends dad were bossing me around like, i'd tell him a thing or to, but not our army veteran, no sir, he let's everyone boss him around.

The movie is what First Blood would have been, if John Rambo were burn like the biggest wimp in the world.


This film deserves another bad review. Consider one reviewer extolling the film's virtues that include 'no sex, violence or gore.' Uh, excuse me. The very set-up of the film has us watching as Cody's young comrade, with love of life and who has everything to live for is blown to bits leaving Cody holding his lifeless, bloody body. And, given the nature of war we know that Cody has seen horror on almost a daily basis. So much for those viewing this film with such rose glasses that the violence which defines Cody's persona is erased from viewer memory.

Sans any family of his own Cody, like John Rambo, roams the country on his bike making the long trek to hometown USA in the guise of some place called Nevada City. No mention, no realization of the clear fact that Cody is damaged goods. We know this since his CO practically declares him so as he order Cody to 'get some rest' away from the death and destruction of war. This explains, as none seem to notice or care, Cody's obvious 'flat' effect. It is not bad acting. It is the flat effect of post traumatic stress disorder. Not guessing here, remember his CO ordered him off the battle field.

How about that 'accidental' kiss as noted by another review. The fall was an accident, the kiss was not. How exactly was Cody 'respecting' Faith by hitting on her knowing full well she was spoken for? Now that was a non-family value moment. A moment which is then announced to the immediate universe as if posted on YouTube. Of course faith's lapse of fidelity as well as Cody's 'coming on' to a woman who plans to marry another is received in the spirit of the Xmas season, all CHEERING their cheaten' hearts and lips.

We know little about Faith's fiancé except that she professes her love for him, she takes no longer than a nano second to accept his proposal (could have waited if any second thoughts), he is generous, he loves her to death, the family has nothing really against him, he believes marriage is based on compromises and the two have never discussed post marriage plans. No evil doers here.

Asner is a fine actor given over the hill dialogue like 'we love you son....' 'You are part of our family' literally days after they have met a stranger named Cody. And the 'band of brothers' speech where the phrase was above all never intended to apply to virtual strangers off the battle field.

Bottom line: This film is cotton candy Xmas fluff that betrays itself in major ways. Most grossly when it applauds Cody's disrespect for Faith by physically hitting on her knowing full well she is spoken for. By re-defining family as we know it to wit: accepting a virtual stranger as a full fledged loving member of the family because we all 'love you.' How many of you have done that or know anyone who has done that. NOT.


I'm stunned that the reviewers @ IMDb gave this TV film as a high a rating as they did. It's an innocuous, sweet, uncomplicated cliché' of a film that had two big names from the past in it (both of whom did a decent job), but this film reeks of the low budget work we can see any day of week on the lesser cable channels. I like a good romance as well as anyone, but as my wife and I were watching this--and before we saw the rating-we said, "There are people who are going to rate this film too highly simply because there's nothing in it to challenge their brains, their faith, their comfort level or their cultural preferences. It's possible to make a good film like that (and Away from Her is an example), but this was amateur hour. There are some quite good films rated much lower than this one. Truly, another in a long line of woefully inadequate holiday films. Watch The Family Stone. It's miles ahead of this schlock.


Sorry my fellow Nevada City neighbors, but this one is bad.

Brian must have had too much botox because he had very little facial expressions through out the entire movie.

Alice looked like she had a board strapped to her backside. She was stiff throughout the movie.

I looked up both Alice and Brian and was surprised to see the extensive bio of work. I would have guessed that they were first-year students.

Ed Asner and Peter Jason carried the movie frankly with their banter and ease with every line. Ed certainly has not lost his charisma. I wish I'd taken the time to meet him while he was here.

I love the snow scenes and scenes of stores and the church because I've been there. I make Nevada City my home and was anxiously awaiting the premiere. I was sadly disappointed.

Sorry.


I watched this film on the Hallmark Channel recently. In my opinion, the film started out decent enough, but eventually got sour.

The Story: A U.S. soldier in Afghanistan receives one of the Christmas cards that a woman back in the U.S. has sent out to troops for Christmas. He becomes so inspired by the Christmas card that he feels it has given him a ray of hope and happiness in his life, a motivation to continue on. When he is given leave, he goes to the very town that the woman lives in. He comes across and spunky young woman and eventually finds out that she is the one that sent the Christmas card. He meets the family and after saving her dad (a Vietnam War Veteran) from getting hit by a car whilst crossing the street, the family decides to take him in for a while. We learn that he doesn't have a family back home. The soldier agrees to help out the family during the Christmas season by working with them at their logging company. The family comes to love him and vice-versa. The soldier also becomes in love with the family's daughter - the woman that sent the Christmas card. There's only one problem. She already has a serious relationship with a man that she's in love with. It's also a long distance relationship. The boyfriend is very different from the soldier. He prefers wine and trips to France over hard labor and the great outdoors. The woman prefers the latter. Throughout the rest of the film, there is a "love triangle" as the woman's boyfriend is back in town visiting her for the season. Everyone in the family seems to want the daughter to be with the soldier and the mom basically wants what's best for her daughter. **(SPOILER ALERT)** The woman comes to like the soldier more and more, as they have a lot in common. They happen to spend a lot of time together. She gradually becomes attracted to his persona. Then one day he kisses her and and she kisses him back. Now she's so confused! She's in love with her boyfriend and wants to marry him someday, but she's become so fond of the soldier. Soon enough, the boyfriend (who doesn't know about the kiss, but is very protective of the woman and thinks the soldier has been trying to move in on her) decides to propose to the woman and she accepts. His plans for their marriage, however, are not plans that she wants. She wants to be at home, have kids and be close to her family. He wants to travel the world, go to exotic places and if they have kids he wants to take them along. This doesn't sound too thrilling for the woman. However, the soldier feels bad about what he's done and doesn't want to make things worse. So, he decides to leave town, despite the dad's urging him to stay and be with his daughter. It all comes to a head when, at the Christmas Eve service with Church, we find out that the soldier hasn't left yet. The boyfriend and the woman speak to each other outside and he, broken-hearted, basically decides to let her go and breaks up with her. The film ends with the woman and the soldier getting together.

Things I like: I like the soldier throughout much of the film. He's basically nice and polite, with a strong sense of doing good for others; there are moments in which the family is going with Church and participating in charitable causes; the family hold hands and pray during an evening meal at the table; the dad and mom have a long-lasting and evidently healthy marriage; the soldier tries to do the right thing in a situation after he did something very wrong

Things I don't like: There is a very typical "love triangle" story in this film; the soldier turns sour as he slowly and subtly moves in on the woman and then eventually kisses her when she already has a boyfriend; most of the family practically applauds this behavior - the family goes with Church and participates in services, yet this is how they act; there is some bad language

Conclusion: I became disappointed as the film ran on, and it got worse and worse. I ended up fast forwarding the very end of the film because I had enough. So, the film started out decent with some few gem moments, but ended up ruining itself. Therefore, I don't recommend this film to anyone.


A movie that makes you want to throw yourself on a sword. I've seen schlock in my time but after viewing the wretched mess I don't think I can ever watch a another movie again. May God pity the souls who made this.

Premise- Ex-Army quiet stud, underwear model type character (well acted actually) goes looking for the girl who sent him a Xmas card while serving in the military. Lands in with her cabin living-granola type family who are right-wing loggers. Family takes to him and it takes 2 hours of our time for the chick to see he's a better catch than her liberal looking ,french wine drinking, porsche driving, loud cell phone talking, lazy, city slicking, Jewish looking fiancé.

The Bad- 1d characters, 1d themes. Being beat over the head with the Pro-Military theme. Ed Asner.

The Good- commercial breaks were long. Peter Jason. It ended.


This relic of a short film starts with a teen going through the process of attempting to get a driver's license. It quickly becomes sidetracked with just about every imaginable topic relating to cars.

Such things as dune buggies, drag racing, custom paint jobs and car shows are discussed. It often attempts to be humorous but instead the film is dull, drawn out and even sexist at times. None of the people in the film are actually heard. Instead, everything is done in narration and voiceovers. Sorry, but I can't stand that.

There is nothing educational or interesting about "Dad, Can I Borrow The Car?". It's just another piece of mindless filler to take up time on their "Wonderful World Of Disney" TV show. 1/10


Definitely not worth the rental, but if you catch it on cable, you'll be pleasantly surprised by the cameos--Iman's appearance is especially self-deprecating. It's also an opportunity to watch all the male supporting cast members from The Sopranos typecast themselves.


Everything about this film was terrible. To start with this film had a pretty good cast and I find it impossible to make such a great cast into the biggest disaster to the gangster film genre ever. The sound track was like one of a very bad slap stick comedy. It had this music through the whole film and it started to get quite irritating.

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE DO NOT INFLICT YOURSELF WITH THIS DISASTER YOU WILL ONLY BE HURT


Is it a coincidence that Orca was made two years after Jaws? Orca isn't exactly a "Jaws rip off" but it is obvious that it tried to profit from Jaws's success. First of all Orca in my opinion was a bad movie, not terrible but definitely not good, average at best.

The plot is basically a male killer whale (orca) after seeing its mate and its unborn calf killed by a fisherman seeks revenge. I couldn't stand to watch this movie again. The direction of this film is poor and when compared to Jaws it looks like the director, producers, and writers were almost talentless.

As for the acting, it was very average and believable, however the actual characters aren't the least bit likable. The effects were alright for its time and the footage of the killer whale looked pretty good.

The violence is confusing, bloody, and not recommended for more sensitive people. The music is overdone and very loud, drowning out the sound effects and irritating at times. I hated the way they exaggerated the intelligence of the killer whale (killer whales don't mate with only one mate as depicted in Orca).

Overall this movie was bad/poor in my opinion, because of the reasons listed above. Some people may appreciate this film more because of the concept of vengeance amongst animals and humans so I'm not going to bash this movie and I can understand why some people may like it.

My Rating: 3.5/10 (but for its concept possibly a 5/10)


Orca starts as crusty Irish sea captain Nolan (Richard Harris) & his crew are trying to capture a Great White Shark so they can sell it for big bucks, unfortunately when a hapless marine biologist called Ken (Robert Carradine) comes under attack from it the Shark is killed by a Killer Whale, this raises Nolan's interest in Killer Whales & decides he want's to catch one of them instead. However while trying to do so he catches a pregnant female & injuries it to the extent she aborts her unborn foetus on deck which makes a mess & enrages her mate, Nolan orders the Whale be dumped back in the sea which is what happens. The male Killer Whale is annoyed to say the least & kills one of Nolan's crew before they reach the dry land of Newfoundland in Canada, once there the Killer Whale conducts a series of attacks on the town & it's people in an effort to lure Nolan back out to sea for a fight to the death...

Directed by Michael Anderson I thought this blatant rip-off was terrible, I'm sorry but I thought it was just plain ridiculous & utterly dull even at a modest 90 odd minutes. The script by producer Luciano Vincenzoni & Sergio Donati is so stupid I'm lost for words, the fact that it seems to take itself very seriously doesn't help & if I have to listen to Charlotte Rampling go on about how intelligent Killer Whale's are just one more time I'll scream. I'm sorry but I simply don't believe a Killer Whale is intelligent enough to know who any particular boat belongs to & sink it, I don't believe a Killer Whale can cause a huge explosion including knocking an oil lantern from a wall on the opposite side it hits as there is no way on earth it could know it was there, I don't believe a Killer Whale can identify someone's house, know someone is in there & then wreck it on purpose, I don't believe a Killer Whale can move icebergs around in order to trap a boat, I don't believe Killer Whales can physically recognise people & I don't believe it has any revenge instincts or at least none that are as strong as this dumb film makes out. Maybe I'm being a bit harsh, I mean it's only a film after all but it's a film which is trying to be serious & things just got so ridiculous that I was half expecting the Killer Whale to write a letter to Nolan to tell him his plan & hand (or should that be fin?) deliver it, the thing seemed intelligent enough to do just about anything else. They should have asked it to come up with a cure for the common cold! Seriously, that's a statement that's no more far fetched than anything else in this film. I found the film very boring, totally dull & had awful character's with no on screen presence at all. It goes without saying this is a Jaws (1975) rip-off which doesn't even come close to Spielberg's classic.

Director Anderson is no Spielberg that's for sure, this rubbishy film has absolutely no suspense, scares, tension or atmosphere at all. All the attack scenes are as dull as dishwater & totally forgettable, there's no build up to them & virtually no pay off either as Orca doesn't get to eat a single person. Then there's the scenes which literally had me laughing, the shots of the Killer Whale appearing to cry are pure comedy & the opening scenes of the two Killer Whales I suspect tried to show them as a 'loving' & 'caring' couple but I couldn't help but think that this is the closest we'll ever get to Killer Whale porn, hilarious stuff. The footage of the Killer Whales themselves is bland & boring, instead of footage which matches & enhances the scenes around it it just looks like dreary wildlife documentary footage that has little connection to anything else. Do you get the impression that I don't like this film? Good. Forget about any gore or decent deaths either, there's a brief scene when Bo Derek has her legs bitten off but blink and you'll miss it.

This probably had quite a big budget & it still sucks, there's nothing outstanding about Orca, it's well made I suppose but flat, bland & totally forgettable. The cinematography is quite nice though. The acting is bad, Rampling is awful & the late Harris' Irish accent is embarrassing.

Orca is a lame Jaws rip-off which completely ignores or messes up everything that made Spielberg's film so good, this is one for bad movie lovers everywhere. Definitely not recommended although not quite as bad as Jaws: The Revenge (1987).


ORCA is not exactly bad, but it's not really Richard Harris's finest hour either. As a demented, Ahab-like fisherman, Harris gets into a game of death with a vengeful killer whale after killing the whale's "wife" and unborn child. Charlotte Rampling plays a whale expert who gets involved with Harris. She yells at him a lot about how important it is to leave nature alone. He doesn't listen and somehow ends up in the arctic battling the revenge crazed whale. There are no special effects to speak of except for what looks like a round mirror for a whale's eye --- there are endless shots of Harris reflected in the eye so the audience understands that the whale knows who he is. Bo Derek, as one of Harris's crew has a particularly unpleasant run in with the Orca and most of the supporting cast, including Robert Carridine, Will Sampson and Keenan Wynn don't fare very well either.


I don't know who got the idea that orcas go around killing people and bashing and destroying things for revenge but my god is it absurd. Orcas are most definitely not the cold-blooded killer this movie makes them out to be...its silly. Orcas are extremely intelligent, don't get me wrong, but I highly doubt they know and understand a concept such as revenge. So I have to say all I got out of this movie was the entertainment of how preposterous it was. So I was at least somewhat amused by it. Personally, I'd recommend going and seeing Jaws if you're wanting to see an Animal-Killing-Humans type of movie. But if you're like me and want to laugh at something this far from realism then I'd say go ahead. :D


Many have stated that Orca  Killer Whale is a Jaws rip-off. This is not really true, though the enormous commercial success of Jaws undoubtedly made these man .vs. beast stories more attractive propositions for film-makers in the second half of the '70s. Orca  Killer Whale would be better described as a modern-day retread of Moby Dick. It's a story about obsession. On one hand a whale's obsessive quest to avenge the death of its mate; on the other a bounty hunter's obsessive quest to kill the whale before it can claim any more lives. Sadly, Orca- Killer Whale emerges a very disappointing film, its fundamentally interesting ideas somewhat ruined by hammy performances and preposterous plotting.

Shark hunter Nolan (Richard Harris) encounters a marine-life researcher Rachel Bedford (Charlotte Rampling) diving off the Atlantic coast of Canada. Their meeting almost ends in disaster when Rachel's team are attacked by a Great White Shark, but a Killer Whale arrives in the nick of time to stop the shark. After this, Nolan becomes increasingly obsessed with capturing a Killer Whale and selling it to an aquarium. But his plans backfire when he accidentally kills a pregnant female of the species while the distraught male looks on. Rachel tells Nolan that a Killer Whale is an incredibly intelligent mammal with a strong memory and feelings just like a human. Worse still, native Umilak (Will Sampson) warns him that the whale will always remember its grief and do everything it can to have revenge. Nolan initially tries to forget about the whole regrettable incident, but the whale causes havoc in the fishing town and the disgruntled locals begin to demand that Nolan puts to sea to track it down and destroy it. Eventually Nolan is forced to pursue the Killer Whale the hunt leads all the way to the desolate ice floes of the Arctic Ocean, where man and beast play out their final fatal battle against each other.

Two things stand out in this film. One is the haunting score by Ennio Morricone (perhaps the greatest composer of film music of all-time, his talents wasted on various tenth-rate clunkers during the 70s and 80s). The other is the amazing widescreen photography of Ted Moore, which makes the film consistently pleasing to the eye. In every other department, Orca  Killer Whale is a shoddy film that does nothing to enhance the reputation of its talented cast and crew. Harris appears extremely ill throughout the film, his hair bedraggled, black rings around his eyes and skin deathly pale. His performance lacks the usual vitality. Rampling strikes a lot of sexy poses but fails to convince with her long-winded and ill-informed explanations about the ways of whales. The rest of the actors are wasted in brief and undeveloped roles, the most memorable of which sees Bo Derek getting her leg bitten off by the vengeful whale. The plot is total nonsense from start to finish, with such preposterous sequences as the whale deliberately starting a fire in the fishing village that engulfs and destroys the local refinery! Although it's credible to suppose that whales are intelligent creatures with genuine emotions, the idea that a whale could plot revenge against a single human adversary and carry it out so calculatedly is utterly absurd. Orca  Killer Whale is really one for completists of the man .vs. beast cycle from the late 70s. Most will come away from the film shaking their heads in disbelief and grinding their teeth with despair.


This film can't make up its mind whether its message is "humans are evil and bad and animals are sweet and blameless" or "don't ever go in the water again." A fisherman (Nolan) is out to nab a killer whale, a very bad thing, but when he accidentally (ACCIDENTALLY mark you) hits a pregnant cow instead of her mate, the cow -- and I use the word in all senses -- who is obviously a sick psycho-bitch and the canonical villain of the piece -- throws herself against the propellers trying to chew herself to bits in the most distressing and hideous not to mention ineffectual method of killing herself. (I doubt it was her first.) When her unborn fetus aborts from her hideous self-inflicted wounds, her mate goes mental with revenge and swears to hurt, kill and mutilate every human who even so much as talks to Nolan. Obviously as among humans, total psychos date other total psychos.

The film reeks of half-thought out anti-human message, "the poor poor whale!! the evil men must suffer and die!" and yet, it does not succeed in demonizing Nolan at all. It's true that when he set out his motives were selfish and cruel, but at the first squeal of the first whale he grows a heart and, as the film progresses, he grows more and more compassionate to the whale's pain until it seems he will walk out on the ice and give himself to the whale, just to make it feel a little better.

The films final journey, in which Nolan follows the whale on a bizarre journey to the north, reminds me of Melville's eerie man-whale connection, and for a moment hinted at a truly interesting conclusion, where these two husbands might connect, understand even respect each other in their own grief, for Nolan lost his wife and unborn child also to an accident. It's clear Nolan respects the whale and feels for its loss. However, it never goes there. The whale-character has no compassion or respect for anyone.

The final scene loses this focus and becomes Jaws-like where the sea-monster finally kills everybody and Nolan and no-doubt through an oversight, fails to chomp up the whale-hugger (tho he made a good snap for her head a little earlier.) I love animals, and I detest whaling, and what is more I love orca whales, but if this film's goal was to make me feel that the whale was the victim and that people are evil and detestable it completely failed. Nolan shows compassion and growth, and feels for others, and all the whale thinks about is killing and maiming.

The only message one can walk away with is "If you see an orca whale, ever, anywhere, run the other way cause if you step on his FIN the wrong way, he will hunt you to the ends of the earth destroying everything around you."


Without a doubt, this is one of the worst pictures I ever actually paid money to see - the kind of flick you choose out of desperation at the mall cinema during a Christmas holiday when you have missed the start times for anything good but still are dead set on seeing a movie! And that is exactly how I came to see this stink bomb...

At the distance of the better part of three decades I can still smell the rotting fish that constitute this story line. Unbelievable plot - that a killer whale carries a grudge against an individual not of the sea - is laughable. And that's about all, except for a completely out-of-place "love theme" that plays over the finish of a film devoid of a love story. At least Charlotte Rampling is lovely (in a two dimensional role) but Richard Harris just chews up the scenery. He was no Captain Quint (Robert Shaw) and this is no "Jaws". Mercifully, I have put most of it out of mind and when I run across it on television air casts I move on immediately. "Danger, Will Robinson!" See the current t.v. commercial showing a husband and wife whale-watching ("Orca - I love Orca...") - at least it is over in sixty seconds. This flick represents 92 minutes of my life that I will never get back.


While I don't claim to be any sort of expert in marine life, I must say anyone with a modicum of intelligence could not possibly buy in to this notion of a whale (and not even the mother!) having a clue about revenge because it witnessed his dead mate having a forced abortion by humans! I mean, really! This is basically the whole plot. Richard Harris must have been extremely hard up for roles to have accepted this junk. This is the kind of movie that is so bad that if you paid 50 cents to see it, you would feel like demanding your money back.


This is only a response to the yahoo who says this movie is more realistic than the classic, genre defining MASTERPIECE, Jaws. Yes, brainiac, great whites(and other species of shark, bull, black-tip, oceanic white-tip, tiger)have been known to populate areas where easy prey is found. Humans don't often make it onto that menu, granted, but the shark in the film was repeatedly pointed out to be exhibiting abnormal behavior. It's not like it's never happened. The odds of a killer whale destroying nearly a whole town, singling out a human nemesis, sinking several dozen thick hulled North Atlantic fishing boats and knowing when certain people, all friends of the aforementioned "nemesis", are close enough to the water for it to reach, are so slim as to be laughable. Much like this turd of a Jaws knock-off. Laughable. Great white sharks are also known to frequently chew on boats, protective underwater cages and people on rafts and surfboards, as they look like seals from below. A shark the size of Bruce(if you don't know, look it up)would be more than capable of sinking a boat like The Orca(hey! that's the name of the blatant rip-off we're discussing!), as it would weigh upwards of 6,000 lbs. I could go on, but I don't need to. Jaws is amazing(better acting, better effects, better music, better writing), Orca is crap(BLATANT rip-off of Jaws, lousy writing, abominable effects, most ridiculous plot this side of an Olson Twins flick). It doesn't take a masters from Columbia University to see that. Watch better movies.


I like monster movies, generally. Even if they are implausible and silly. But its hard to like this movie when its so implausible and silly AND tries to take itself seriously all at the same time. Like in a really posh kind of way.

While the idea is somewhat factual, like Orcas are known for killing Great White Sharks, its really hard to find it scary when I can't help but just see an angry Shamoo destroying stuff. Especially that one scene where some building exploded cause of the Orca's doing...and while it explodes, the thing jumps out of the water and it felt like I was watching a show at Sea World with fireworks. Plus they kill a lot of the scary moments before they even hint that they're going to happen. On top of that, it takes a few jabs at JAWS. Its like "hey look, we're being factual and we can come up with BETTER reasons why the Orca is attacking".

Yes you are, ignoring your outrageous **** ups in logic of course. But JAWS had one thing your movie doesn't. Its scary. Yes its implausible. Yes its somewhat outrageous. But quite frankly, factual or not, a Killer Shark is not close to being as scary as a Great White. And the poor attempt at character development and writing just hurts it more. Even JAWS the Revenge is scarier than this.


Please do not waste +/- 2 hours of your life watching this movie - just don't. Especially if someone is fortunate to be snoozing at the side of you. Damn cheek if you ask me. I waited for something to happen - it never did. I am not one of those people to stop watching a movie part way through. I always have to see it through to the end. What a huge mistake. Do yourself a favour and go and paint a wall and watch it dry - far more entertaining. Please do not waste +/- 2 hours of your life watching this movie - just don't. Especially if someone is fortunate to be snoozing at the side of you. Damn cheek if you ask me. I waited for something to happen - it never did. I am not one of those people to stop watching a movie part way through. I always have to see it through to the end. What a huge mistake. Do yourself a favour and go and paint a wall and watch it dry - far more entertaining.


Fairly amusing piece that tries to show how smart Orcas are but in the meanwhile (and quite oblivious to them) makes the audience feel stupid by making the most ridiculous film. Richard Harris plays Quint.. I'm sorry, that's wrong, he plays Captain Nolan, a fisherman who catches sharks for a living, but is lured by the big catch, and tries to catch a killer whale. When the capture of a female killer whale goes awry (don't ask) it's mate (don't ask) goes on a rampage (don't ask) and starts STALKING Captain Nolan (Don't ask). Soon, Captain Nolan realizes that they have something in common (don't ask). Pretty amazing film-making here folks. I got to tell you though, the beginning (with the whale noises and nothing much else) is pretty haunting and the end credits (with the most godawful song) is pretty entertaining.


Whale-hunters pick on the wrong freaking whale.

A group of yahoo whale exploitists capture a female and string her up by her tail-fin. The whale's mate sees the whole thing including the moment the female's unborn baby slips out and slops onto the deck. 'Captain Nolan' (Richard Harris) could tell that the big male is really mad by the way it stared him down as if to say, "Get out of town before high-tide."

This story of revenge has Harris' presence and Bo's beauty, but not much else. This was Bo's first 'released' film, though her first acting job was four years previous in 'And Once Upon a Love' released in 1981 as 'Fantasies' (directed by John Derek).

P.S. Today, the date of this review (November 20), is Bo Derek's birthday. I hope Bo has a 'whale' of a good time..... get it?..... whale?..... hee-hee.


I can fondly remember Bo Derek's heyday and the UK press attention (the mucky Sun & News of the World papers especially)- all following her small role in "10" with Dudley Moore. Understandably, much fuss was made of her photogenic face, crystal clear blue eyes and her perfectly formed bouncing breasts.

Unfortunately, acting is, and never was, her forte! I think they should make one of the triple disc collections you always find in the bargain DVD bins- Orca, Tarzan the Ape-man and Bolero. All these films could be nominated for the "So Bad They Are Great".

It would be a guilty "must buy" of mine! Should you ever read your press, or this comment Ms Derek, please do not be offended- ALways had a soft spot for you and there are more important things going on in the world to worry about than your acting ability. Much Love.x


OK. I know that the wanna-be John Hughes movies of the 80s were all unilaterally flat, so the expectations for this film ran pretty low.

Still, after sitting through this crap there's one key thing I can't seem to get out of my head:

I just sat through an 80s Rob Lowe movie that had no nudity and only hints of sex in them.

The acting is awful, the characters boring and flat, the portrayal of Oxford an absolute insult, and the rowing scenes unexciting, uneventful, and inaccurate.

Unless you've got some wierd Ally Sheedy or Amanda Pays (or I guess, Rob Lowe) fetish, there's really no reason to see this one.


This is one of those movies which makes you think: would Hulk " The real American " Hogan have done the same? Frankly I don't think so and he'd have been right. I'm Italian, I cannot go proud of my country for many reasons, but I wouldn't have rowed for another team (The French, for example), simply because I'm in love with Juliette Binoche. Besides the protagonist doesn't fall in love desire with a British girl at the end of the movie but with a fellow countrywoman, so why rowing against Yale. As far as acting is concerned, well, all the players act very poorly. And then , you know, I hated that "Dead poets society " atmosphere. In fact that's another movie I hate.


First off, to give you some idea of my taste in movies...

2007 Comedies I enjoyed: Superbad, Knocked Up, Hot Fuzz, Blades Of Glory

2007 Comedies I hated: Evan Almighty, The Brothers Solomon, Good Luck Chuck

I should have followed my first instinct and turned off "Hot Rod" after I got to about the 20 minute mark. I knew by that point that this movie would not make me laugh once. The script is absolutely brutal - I have no idea how this monstrosity managed to crack 6 on IMDb. Any one older than 10 years old who enjoyed this must be some kind of mental defective.

This doesn't come close to anything with Will Farrell and it's clear that Andy Samberg can't carry anything longer than a 5 to 10 minute sketch on YouTube or SNL. I don't know how they roped Ian McShane and Isla Fisher into doing this movie... they must have owed favors or something. I came in knowing that it would be a dumb movie, but I thought it would at least be funny. I didn't so much as smirk.

I don't normally comment on movies at IMDb, but this was so awful, I just had to warn people. This is only the 4th movie I've seen that I've felt compelled to rate 1/10.


So i had low expectations for this movie to start with, but it failed to meet even those. while there were some funny parts, even one or two laugh out loud parts, this movie fell terribly short of what i would call good. the funniest jokes were unexpected and over very quickly, leaving us sitting there going "WTF just happened?" in addition, there were a few jokes that just dragged on and on and on. the part where he falls down the mountain had me yawning. also, the editing was really lacking. there were some poor scene transitions, but that seems to be the style nowadays. It made me laugh, but i wouldn't watch it again, and I'm very glad i waited for it to rent. give it a chance, you might enjoy it, but don't think you are in for anything along the lines of the 40 year old virgin, or Superbad.


This movie is one of the worst comedy movies i have ever seen. I hate these Napoleon Dynamite rip-offs. Just face it people the dumb humor has been mastered already. Make something new for once. All these new comedies are just horrible. And coming out of SNL Andy Samberg is not ready for a lead role yet. I hope he can bounce back from this awful movie. And Will Arnetts character is just plain bad. Hey Will, did you read the script. The plot is truly the worst ever written. Now you tell me if this is weird. (this is the movie) Rod Kimble's step dad Frank is dying and the family needs $50,000 to pay for the heart surgery so Rod is planning this huge jump to raise money for Frank. Only so that Rod can beat Frank in a fight and prove his manliness. Yes thats the movie, you tell me, would u spend $7.00 to see that piece of crap!

3/10 just horrible

-adam


If i could have rated this movie by 0 i would have ! I see some ppl at IMDb says that this is the funniest movie of the year , etc etc excuse me ? are you ppl snorting LSD or ........? There is absolutely NOTHING funny about this movie N O T H I N G ! I actually want my 27 minutes back of my life that i spent watching this piece of crap.

I read someone sitting on an airplane watching this movie stopped watching after 30 minutes , i totally understand that , i actually would have watched snakes on a plane for 2 times over instead of watching this movie once !

DO NOT watch this movie , do something else useful with your life do the dishes , walk the dog , hell... anything is better than spending time in front of the TV watching hot rod.


Alright, friends, a serious movie buff is expected to watch all kinds of movie, the bad as well as the good, and this movie put me to the test. I won't mince words. This movie was bad. The story was bad. The acting was bad. The always wonderful Sissy Spacek did nothing to make this movie better. Indeed I asked myself why did I even bother to see this rotten trashy movie? Why did I waste my time and money on something that I suspected would be bad? The answer is, of course, that I am a movie buff and therefore cannot avoid what otherwise should be avoided. I will not waste your time explaining what exactly was wrong with this amateurish movie, except to say that the quality of the acting was, to put it politely, subpaar. A serious movie buff may want to take on the responsibility of watching this movie. Otherwise. stay home, don't waste your time, read a book, take take of chores or have yourself a good sandwich.


I got to see an early preview of this movie and I hope they have time to edit it in what ever way they can to improve on it before it comes out Aug 3rd. It stars Andy Samberg from Saturday Night Live as 'Hot' Rod Kimble. He's plays a teenager in a small town who wants to be a stunt man like his late father. When we meet him, he's jumping a mail truck on his mo-ped, yes, a mo-ped, and almost makes it. This would be worthy of a 'Jackass' movie if he wasn't honestly trying to do this. Isla Fisher plays the slightly older and much more mature girl-next-door, Denise. She seems to like Rod enough to join his 'crew'. Jorma Taccone (also SNL) plays his half brother, Kevin, who documents the stunts with a camcorder. Sissy Spacek plays Rod's mom, Marie. She remarried Frank Powell, played by Ian McShane. Frank's a real tough guy who enjoys beating Rod in some real drag out brawls. It's clear that Rod's not going to earn Frank's respect till he can beat him. We find out Frank needs a $50,000. heart transplant and Rod is determined to raise the money just so he 'can beat his ass' once he's healed, and prove himself a man. A long fall down a mountain side convinces Rod to 'go big' on one stunt. Rod sets out to get seed money by charging for doing stunts that would make you cringe if you saw them in real life. Like the human torch- at a children's birthday party. There were those at the showing who managed to laugh at most of the stunts. Just when all hope and money is lost, along comes a sponsor who saves the day by getting the 15 school buses Rod wants to jump. He gets exclusive broadcast rights and sets up phone lines to get donations. Rod gets a new outfit and a real motorcycle. The whole town turns out and the world tunes in. Does he make the jump? Does he get the girl? Do they raise the $50k? Does Frank get his ass beat by Rod? Wait till this 90 minute movie comes out on video to find out.


When viewing a movie as silly as 'Hot Rod,' one must sit back, relax, and alter one's intellectual capacity to a like state  which is, in this case, a state dimwitted enough to endure brainless drivel that has somehow been mistaken for comedy. With a brief runtime of 88 minutes, this film was long past drawn-out and buried itself beneath a bundle of repetitive jokes  jokes that came at a minority and weren't even funny in the first place. 'Hot Rod''s base material is as superficial and irrelevant as 2004's cult hit 'Napoleon Dynamite,' though it's much more contrived and comes without ANY of the laughter. In fact, the movie's blatant desperation to be compared to 'Napoleon Dynamite' is scornful and offensive, and left me ticked off, instead of just being annoyed.

The movie, if one were compelled enough to call it such, poses a paltry story that puts self-proclaimed stuntman Rod Kimble before us, with the trifling intention of jumping fifteen buses (one more than his idol Evel Knievel jumped, so we're told by Rod) and raising $50,000 dollars for his stepfather's impending life-saving heart operation; all so that he can fight his stepfather, once recovered, and gain his respect because in order to gain one's respect, one must first fight them. Huh? Whatever. Each character is no more interesting than Rod's stick-on mustache, and from the film's opening joke to its ridiculous conclusion, each scene played like a nonsensical, and terribly unfunny, SNL skit  which, with the addition of an extra 85 minutes, is, essentially, what 'Hot Rod' strives to be.

The film's star, Andy Samberg, contributed an effort to the screen that observably exerted every last drip-drop of his comedic capabilities. Unfortunately  rather, realistically  his humorous talents are no more admirable than a five-year-old retelling his own exhausted joke that somewhere includes the innocently crude poop and pee-pee gags. And if that's disappointing, pull a chair, hide your face in your hands, and brace yourself for the real blow: he IS the film's humor! To rescue them of their mortification, I'll willingly omit the ghastliness of Samberg's co-stars' roles and leave the second third of The Lonely Island team, director Akiva Schaffer, to his non-existent talent as a director or a comedian. Basically, every thing one could possibly do to further trample a crash-course comedy is perfectly portrayed here; and done so arrogantly, as though the film would be funnier that way. Trick yourself into believing that there's even a single laugh in this heap, or treat yourself to another movie  ANY other movie.


By no means is this movie as bad as 'Perfect Stranger', but it just wasn't funny. It couldn't stick to one type of comedy - it jumped from SNL, to Adam Sandler-esquire, to romantic, to little guy scores big, to slapstick, to 'Loser' (the movie) types of comedies. Although there were some pretty funny slapstick moments (the fall down the hill), no one was very particularly funny or outstanding in any way. 'Schindler's List' was funnier (and felt shorter). you never knew if Andy Samberg was supposed to be in high school, a college dropout, or just a loser living at home with his mother - Sissy Spacek, in her worst choice of roles. And poor Ian McShane, THE serious actor if I only had to name one, is given crap to read into the camera. The story drags and is completely predictable up to and including the end (no spoilers here in case Adam Samberg's mom wants to see it). Don't spend ANY money going to see this movie, and maybe Lorne Michaels will get the hint and start producing quality (Yes, Wayne's World and Tommy Boy are quality) movies.


Quite possibly the worst movie I've ever seen; I was ready to walk out after the first ten minutes. The only people laughing in the theater were the tweeners. Don't get me wrong, I love silly, stupid movies just as much as the next gal, but the whole premise, writing and humor stunk. It seemed to me that they were going for a "Napoleon Dynamite" feel - strange and random scenes which would lead to a cult audience. Instead, it ended up being forced, awkward and weird.

The only bright light was Isla Fisher and I just felt utterly awful that she (and Sissy Spacek) had signed up for this horrible thing.

Thank gosh I didn't pay for it.


My family and I screened Underdog the night before. And as bad as Underdog is ( my four year old loved it), Hot Rod makes it look like Oscar worthy material. The only thing that could have saved this movie, was if Evel himself had come out of retirement to slap Samberg in the face for making this movie. I will admit however, that the soundtrack was good. I wasn't sure if the movie was set in the 80's, but with the majority of the music coming from Europe? Who knows. If I were you, I would take a pass. And just stay at home and watch the test pattern on your local TV station. Or if you are dead set on watching this, people under the influence might enjoy it.


I've seen a lot of crap in my day, but goodness, Hot Rod takes the cake. I saw a free screening in NY the other night. I can only hope they show the funny version to the paying customers. The big laughs were sparse, the plot was uninteresting, and the characters were one dimensional at best. One highlight is a hilarious dancing scene with Adam Samberg. It was priceless and was the only scene I truly had a hearty laugh at. Other than that, I can only recollect randomness and dead air. SNL & Samberg fans may be disappointed. I know I was expecting more from it. But it short, I definitely would not recommend attending a free screening or paying to watch this film.


SNL is pretty funny but people who say this is like watching a Short skit on SNL is a little dumb minded. It's NOTHING like SNL, it's just a stupid piece of crap.

Andy Samberg tries to act like Jon Heder but fails. Although Jon Heder is only funny in Napoleon Dynamite Andy tries his hardest and people think he's funny.

Only funny people in the movie were Danny McBride and Bill Hader. The only part that was decently funny with Andy was the pool part.

They could have made the "Quiet place" a lot better if they didn't make the falling scene 3 freaking minutes.

The part where he's pronouncing his H's more is retarded. They try going with it too long and half the time it looks like Andy is laughing while he acts...he's a horrible actor and doesn't deserve to be in a movie.

This movie is a joke and is for the simple minded people with the brain of a 10 year old level of comedy. Which is about half the United States.


Here's one you can watch with a straight face, with a script so bad, even Will Ferrell wouldn't be in it.

There are two laughs in HOT ROD.

1. The Punch-Dance. Rod "needs to go to his quiet place" and before anyone can say Kevin Bacon, he is footloosing a passionate, overwrought bodyswerve to the strains of a band who wishes they had the big-hair faux-metal chops of Europe.

2. John Farnham's You're The Voice. In one of those epic sequences where the star and his cohorts do The Slomo Walk down Main Street and the townfolk follow on their heels in support, the soundtrack is the gag. How did the film-makers even come across this Aussie recording artist? A major Australian vocalist (and a genuine talent) who shot to fame in the early '70s covering Raindrops Keep Fallin' On My Head, then disappeared until 1986 for The Big Comeback with You're The Voice, John Farnham's anthem is so bewitchingly cheesy, it leveled mountains in Switzerland.

Besides these two high points in the film - both ruined anyway with the slipshod writing - the rest of the film is like choking on someone else's vomit.

Andy Samberg is Rod, a failed stunt jumper who has never made a jump. Maybe it's got something to do with the fact he's driving a moped into the heart of darkness. Or his fake mustache. Yeh, someone actually thought that was funny.

Without one jump under his starry belt, he plans for a 15-bus extravaganza - which would surely kill a lesser bad comedian, like Jason Biggs or Rob Schneider - to win the day and save his stepfather and simultaneously wipe out cancer and whatever... who watches these movies for plot anyway? Along the way (as usual for moronic leads in these comedies), he scores a salubrious chick (Isla Fisher), who must surely be retarded to consider swapping chromosomes with this loser.

Sissy Spacek (CARRIE, 1976) has so little to do she almost phoned in her performance - then changed her mind and just hung up. Ian McShane must've lost a bet to be here.


This was one of the worst movies I've ever seen. Horrible acting,Not funny at all, and well just boring.

I can only assume all these 10 out of 10 fav. all time movie comments are actually the actors themselves in disguise.

Idk what the runtime on this movie is I'm sure its listed on this page It certainly felt like an eternity

If your looking for a tough challenge,attempt to sit through this awful movie.

otherwise

Don't waste your time as I did on this one


After a promising first 25 minutes that makes you feel all warm inside, you're pretty convinced that this will be a great romantic comedy. Then the movie takes a turn for the worse.

The warm feeling might still be there, but as others has said: The plot becomes so unbelievable and artificial that it's almost unbearable to watch.

The movie gets sped up, and you get the impression that you're either fast forwarding through it, or that the producers decided to fit it in less than 1h40m and had to cut a lot of scenes out.

Realism isn't a goal onto itself, but as a viewer, I'm pretty convinced that this comedy isn't intentionally unrealistic, it just happens to be.

On the plus side, this movie has a couple of nice interiors, and despite the bad script, I think that the actors performances are mainly good. If I could rate the first 25 minutes only, I'd probably give it an eight. As it is now, it gets a four. ...And that's being nice!

If you're a sucker for romantic comedies you'll probably have a great time anyways. If not, I'd recommend that you watch something else.


Otherwise it is one of the worst movies I've ever seen - and I mean ever. My wife and I were both bored out of our minds within 10 minutes. Not to mention being boring, it is entirely unbelievable. Women (non-lesbian) don't bathe together - nor do they "accidentally" kiss. Brothers and sisters don't live together well into their 30s and run around swing dancing together and engaging in footraces in central park. Men don't find out their wife and sister romantically kissed the night before the wedding and then never discuss it with said wife. Absolutely ridiculous.

Heather Graham is possibly the worst actress in films today. She smiles when she should be crying and vice versa. The only movie she has ever been good in is Boogie Nights - and that is because she wasn't acting.

I cannot stress enough how bad this movie was.


It was obvious that this movie is designed to appeal to the Chick Flick audience, to which i have sat through quite a few and enjoyed most. However, this was a very irritating attempt by Heather Graham to become the next Meg Ryan ( who became annoying as hell in her own right ). Her acting was overdone and it appeared that she was overanxious compared to her colleagues who were relaxed in their roles. This film might have been more, as there was suitable budget for settings, actors and a decent story line. My wife and I both agreed that this was 'Muck' at the end, as the film ended on a painful embarrassing high! Better luck next time, hope Miss Graham sticks to the type of films that she belongs in like From Hell.


If there has ever been a worse comedy than 'Gray Matters' I am unaware of it. The New York Jewish comedy's 'funny' premise is that siblings Sam & Gray are mistaken for a couple and so decide to fix Sam up with a girlfriend, only to find that Gray is equally attracted to their target - Charlie. The revelation that Gray is secretly gay is apparently only a surprise to her. There is a deeply offensive wedding sequence, a deeply embarrassing 'drunk act' from Moynahan and Graham, and a performance that would embarrass forests everywhere for its woodenness from Tom Cavanagh. Sissy Spacek demonstrates a complete inability to do comedy and will want this excised from her resume. Molly Shannon plays the homely friend with lumpen insouciance. Only Alan Cumming emerges with any credit but is seriously under-employed and given nothing with which to work. The whole disaster is cemented by Graham's bizarre eye-rolling performance culminating with the penultimate scene where she wears a comedy hat and an overcoat despite the scene being set in a lesbian bar. It is astonishing that this film was ever released it has no redeeming feature and should be avoided at all costs.


Sam (Thomas Cavanagh) and Gray (Heather Graham) are devoted siblings who share an apartment and a love of many things -- ballroom dancing, 1940s movie musicals and, much to their surprise, an attractive woman named Charlie (Bridget Moynahan). Historically heterosexual, Gray is confused by her new feelings.

Gray Matters proves to be one of the blandest films I have ever seen. It's dull, predictable, unfunny, poorly acted and poorly written. Nothing about it felt real and everything was very cheesy. Also, this isn't really a romantic comedy with a special twist but more of a "coming out" movie. Sue Kramer tried to make the first half cute with the romantic stuff and the second half serious with the actual acceptance and coming out part. Unfortunately, she failed miserably. The first half was largely unfunny and only Heather Graham was able to hold it up a little. Then, the film took an awkward tone and got all serious. The serious scenes were handled poorly and all of the emotions just felt phony.

I guess I would have enjoyed the film a little more if the relationships between the characters felt more authentic. The brother and sister relationship was very weak and they didn't really appear to be that close. Their relationship just didn't feel very natural. Also, the relationship between Tom and Bridget felt very unnatural. If two people are going to get married after only knowing each other for less than a week, then you would expect to see a little more excitement but the characters talked about getting married in Vegas in the same manner of asking a waiter what the specials are. There was a lack of excitement in the film and it was hard to get involved with the movie with such unmotivated characters.

The acting was mostly weak which was a bit surprising given the decent cast. Heather Graham gave the only good performance in the movie. She was funny and had a few charming scenes but it's too bad that all of her co-stars were complete duds. Bridget Moynahan was very weak and her performance ringed false on every level. Also, it seemed like she was reading her lines. Thomas Cavanagh was pretty wooden and he showed nearly no emotion. The chemistry between Thomas and Heather was non existent and that damaged the film because their relationship felt phony. I can usually rely on Molly Shannon to be funny in a supporting role but here she was just annoying. Sissy Spacek had about two scenes and she was annoying in both of them. Finally, Alan Cumming just had an embarrassing character and his performance wasn't very good. Overall, Gray Matters is a lame film and it isn't worth watching. Rating 3/10


I had to walk out on this film fifteen minutes from the end... having passed through the cringe stage and into pure boredom. What really horrifies me, I mean truly disturbs me, is that there are people referring to this aimless drivel as 'delightful' or a 'must see.' I would feel deep pity for those so afflicted were it not for the distinct impression that most of the positive comments about this shallow and humourless travesty were written by industry plants.

The truth is this is a lame film that does nothing to entertain nor enlighten. It is decidedly unfunny, poorly scripted and has all the pace and energy of cold, canned rice pudding. To be kind to Ms Kramer, the best one can say is it was a missed opportunity, for having read the synopsis before I watched it, I had expected something more challenging. The possible misinterpretations of a close brother and sister co-dependence, the unexpected awakening of 'sisterly' sexuality, and the comic potential in such sibling rivalry (for the affections of the same girl) were all obvious subjects for refreshing comedic exploration, yet which at every turn the movie frustratingly shies away from.

Instead, the audience is subjected to a meandering series of uninspired and insipidly drawn situations, with clichéd characterisations and dull performances from a cast struggling for belief and obviously in need of much tighter direction. The lack of directorial control seems astounding; on the one hand, Moynahan, Cavanagh and Spacek all give very pedestrian performances, while Heather Graham and Molly Shannon - the latter in particular - veer towards embarrassing over-compensation at times. One could lay the blame for this on the director - maybe Sue Kramer hopes that if her actors over-act, they will force a bigger laugh from the audience. But then again, the cast is a veteran one; one would expect them to do better.

Sue Kramer really needs to think carefully what kind of movies she wants to make, and for whom. Given the possible issues Gray Matters alludes to, and given her inability or unwillingness to fully explore them in the context of a comedy, perhaps she should consider writing dramas instead. I know it is never easy to make films about women and women's issues, especially when one hopes to reach a wider audience than women alone, but whatever direction she takes, inconsequential and flimsy characters like Gray are not going to cut mustard.


I wish I'd known more about this movie when I rented it. I'd put it in my queue on the basis of Heather Graham and her strong cred as an actress (IMHO). While parts of the movie were charming, much of the movie felt contrived, undeveloped, or otherwise just boring or predictable. Not to mention the ICK factor of so many people thinking the sibs were a couple... I don't care how big a part of the story line that is, it still felt a bit, um, gross. And Charlie, for a zoologist, she certainly doesn't seem to be very attuned to signals from other Homo sapiens. What was it about her (besides her hotness and some common interests) that made Gray fall for her? The story could have been so much more interesting with a little more depth. High points - Molly Shannon (although I do agree with the reviewer who found her annoying on occasion), the cabbie in drag, and the dance sequences (if Sam & Gray were such great dancers, I wish we'd seen more of that, as the bits we were shown were indeed better than most of the rest of the movie). Could have been better.


This is one of the worst movies I have seen this year. You should not see this movie but if you insist on wasting your time you should stop here, there are SPOILERS. Gray Matters centers on Gray and Sam Baldwin (Heather Graham and Tom Cavanagh). Only Gray and Sam are Brother and Sister; living together in everyone else's eyes as man and wife. No sex but just about everything else. Early on, the movie starts with its theme: 'the most absurd thing at the most absurd moment with you guessed it the most absurd reactions'. Gray and Sam decided to check out the dog park with a borrowed pooch. Rather then push her brother to get the skinny on first woman they see for him, she does it and gets to the nitty-gritty questions too. When she signals her brother to come over they start a 3-way date. Charlie (Bridget Moynahan) is the girl of THEIR dreams, like all the right things etc Sam final hits Gray over the head and the couple finishes the date with a marriage proposal! That Charlie accepts! In one week Charlie, Gray and Sam are to be in Vegas. In the next week Charlie and Gray are off shopping for wedding gowns (apparently Charlie has an off-the-rack figure). Gray is slurping an iced latte when Charlie suggests Gray tries on some gowns as well and picks out a $10,000 frock for her. While Charlie is zipping her in this 'down-payment-on-a-house' gown Gray continues to slurp on the latte (I swear it was like a feed bag). What should happen but 'woops!' latte all over the gown. It is never explained how they got out of Bloomingdale's bridal salon with out a $10,000 mocha colored gown. Back to 'reality'  Caesar's palace Las Vegas. They have the 'high roller room' (Sam is a resident surgeon and Charlie is an intern zoologist  were do they get all this money?) Gray kicks Sam out to the single room down the hall so she and Charlie can have a bachelorette drink-a-thon were, you guessed it - they kiss. Gray remembers everything; Charlie remembers nada. They make it to wedding chapel and right when the Reverend gets to his line "If there is anybody is here who has any objection whatsoever to the union of these two lovebirds" Gray gets the hiccups. Gray excuses herself, for some reason the Reverend must repeat his last line and right on queue again 'hiccups'. Gray gets back to NY and starts dating any man she meets, literally. And of course one is you guessed it again! Gay. The other is a jerk and the third is a taxi cab driver (Alan Cummings) named Gordy. He is smittened with Gray but the feelings are not returned. They become great friends. This is good because when she comes clean with Sam about the kiss. He blows up and kicks her out of their apartment. When Sam comes to his senses he goes to her office. Gray works at an ad agency. This office is smack in the middle of the twilight zone. It has cameras and microphones in all the conference rooms that broadcast to all computer monitors at the agency. Sam gets Gray in one of the conference rooms for a not-so-private conversation and ends up outing her to the entire office. This is where I doubt that there was a gay man or lesbian on the crew: Gordy comes to her rescue and convinces her to go to a lesbian bar. 'Sorry no men' says the bouncer. So Gray and Gordy return with Gordy in drag. Bad drag. He was in a sleeveless black satin-like blouse, a string of pearls, and a grandma's church hat. No lesbian would ever confuse this 'man in a dress' as a drag queen much less a woman. The bar was also the straight man's fantasy of what a lesbian bar is: full of Victoria's Secret models. Everything turns out peachy  she goes home with her firm's client. Gray happens to be on the woman's account and finally does more then kiss. For some reason no one tells Charlie anything and she is oblivious through the whole movie of this kiss with Gray, but that is for the sequel.


The first half of this movie is a pure delight. Novel. Funny. Wonderful performances. A close knit brother and sister living in Manhattan fall for the same woman! Adult. Bright. Witty. What more could you ask. As a romantic comedy this starts refreshing. It heads into unexplored territory. And then it falls apart.

It goes from being a universal adult comedy to a coming-of-age coming-out-of-the-closet story that has been done many times before. What a disappointment. As a people film it begins with such promise. Why does it need to turn into such a pedestrian "I am who I am" film. The freeze-frame ending shot of Heather Graham's jumping in the air to celebrate "her happiness at finding herself" underlines the banality of the last part of the film.

It could have been different. It could have been magical. It ended up being the same old same old.


I watched this movie yesterday and was highly disappointed.

Heather Graham and Tom Cavanaugh basically had to carry this awkwardly unbelievable script for five hours (or however long it actually was). From the beginning, every single element of this movie is unbelievable. This movie made me chuckle several times, but they were mainly out of shock that the director/writer actually expected us to believe the many messy scattered elements that attempted to piece this movie together.

The movie's focus is Gray (Graham) and her issues with intimacy. Things get interesting when she realizes that she and her brother have unexpectedly WAY too much in common.

Interesting, intriguing. However, instead of unraveling this story into something believable and palatable, the director keeps taking Gray into these ludicrous twists that never actually make any sense at all. Being an LGBT individual, this movie seemed to echo what all heterosexuals think we go through in the coming-out process. (I'll be insulted if the writer's queer.) Had it not been for the cute chemistry between Cavanaugh and Graham (which, by the way, was understandably forced), I would give it a negative 3 stars.


It is important not to be insulted by lack of logic or common sense and those who have any "gray matters" will agree that this movie just doesn't work.

The problems lay in the direction, cast selections and lack of depth in the character building. The word comedy was very hard thing to say when i expect to laugh when these words are used. Let's look at the problems in direction/script.

Brother and sister both in their mid 30's seem to be well adjusted. They meet a complete stranger at a park and Heather Graham character walks up to her and asks the most intimate questions that even half sane person would be running the other way or at least scream for a police officer. He then awkwardly walks over and makes some stupid statements and she falls for him. Then after ONE date were they all go out together he falls in love with her and decides to get married in Vegas in a week's time???? Hello does anyone feel stupid yet? He goes out with thousands of women and he meets this one person who says about 10 words that WE see on the screen and he wants to marry her. Not only was there no chemistry it just doesn't make sense. Sure it's a romantic comedy and I want to believe it could, but the direction made it completely flat.

Now Heather falls head over heels with her too and when Heather Graham and Bridget Moynahan (very shallow character) kiss or more to the point it was sloppiest kiss ever that chemistry MIGHT be there. I found it unromantic and unfunny and while many say Heather cannot act i think the reality is Heather was clearly the wrong person for this role.

This was Sue Kramer debut as a director and to me it was just too much for her to chew. It would take a lot of craft to make this movie work and IMHO it could be done with better writers and casting and direction.


Okay, let me coin a new word here: polyphobia: The fear of polyamorous relationships. This is yet another in a long line of movies which start out by titillating audiences about some kind of threesome, only to turn on a dime and go all preachy about how it is oh so necessary and the only moral thing to find a monogamistic solution. Only one person in a thousand understands the delight of being able to love more than one person, and this director is not one of them. Bleh.

Mark my words: a few decades from now, polyphobia is going to be just as big a faux-pas as homophobia, but guess who was too close-minded to realize this? Right the first time: the producers of this movie. And so many like it. Why even make a ridiculously conservative and old-fashioned type of movie like this? Priding itself on being limitlessly open-minded about gayness, it completely overlooks the fact that we live in an age where monogamy is turning into sequential monogamy, which in turn in turning into swinging and polyamory. Open your eyes, people, please!

This is a disappointing, run-of-the-mill chick-flick. (But, damn, I gotta say, Heather Graham is the cutest thing alive.)

3 out of 10.


Wow probable the worst movie i have ever seen!! This person should never make another movie!!I cant believe anyone would have produce this in good conscience.YOu have have wasted every cent. No concept of real life. I have wasted 2 hours of my life i will never get back. EVER!!! Everyone who worked on this show should be embarrassed!!!!!! I'm embarrassed for them! All of you should be ashamed. If i was gay i would want to tell the director that they have personally set back gay rights progress by 5 years. Please never watch this movie.I have never written a blogg about a film before but The distaste for this film has compelled me to do so.


OH MY GOD.. THE WORST SH*T I'VE EVER SEEN -this is the main thought which came into my mind right after watching the movie. And I really do not understand anybody with opposite myth. Though, maybe the idea was good but the effect miserable. I especially mean the role of H. Graham. What was that??? In my opinion it has destroyed all positive intentions of producers. The character was played in affected and annoying way. Every time she appears it reminds that you' re watching a movie and is destroying a spirit of the moment, then whole movie because the most time what you can see there are her stupid faces with more stupid attempts to create the emotion. TERRIBLE, don't waste your time.


I don't know who Sue Kramer, the director of this film is, but I have a strong suspicion that A) she is a lesbian and B) she somehow shamed everyone involved in this project to participate to prove they are not homophobic.

I can imagine everyone thinking, "My God, this is horrible. Not funny. Pedestrian. Totally lame." But keeping their mouths shut for fear they will be labeled anti-gay or they "don't get" the gay lifestyle. (This is probably why Kramer did NOT cast gay people to play gay people too.) Anyway, it's not even worth reviewing. The actors are all directed to play every scene completely over the top so there is no sincerity or believability in anything they do. It's full of clichés and there is nothing about this movie that is the least bit amusing - much less funny.

I hated it and I'm not afraid to say so. Too bad the gutless people who gave Kramer the money to make this bomb weren't as unbiased in their judgment.


Heather Graham couldn't play a convincing lesbian if her life depended on it. Who do the producers of the movie think they are? the ABSOLUTE WORST, most UNREALISTIC movie i've seen in as long as i can remember. This movie is so bad that i felt compelled to sign-up on IMDb and make sure the rating of this "film" drops.

omg i'm Heather Graham, i just kissed a drunk chick, so while she's passed out i'm REALLY going to pace around my room for HOURS asking myself frantically "WHAT HAVE I DONE?!".. Jesus heather, get over it and grow up... and i'd like to forward that same sentiment to the idiot producers... and while i'm at it, instead of this movie being all about an pathetic excuse for a coming out story, perhaps it would have been more suitable to focus the plot onto a character who's mentally unstable... like your so-called "lesbian" character... after all, i know the first time i had gay sex, when i left the next morning i jumped to the sky in excitement in the middle of the street... honestly b*tch, get a grip...

WHAT A JOKE! and please note there are many many many more flaws and appallingly stupid aspects to this lame flick, but i'm so sick of even thinking about it anymore. bottom line, if you're a smart person you'll hate this movie, and if you're not a smart person, then you'll love it... it's as simple as that.


I don't know what it was about this film that made me react so viscerally against it. Perhaps it was the characters who so unlikable and were not compelling enough to care about. Perhaps it was the disorganized storyline. Perhaps it was the fact that Rob Lowe wore a long dangly earring and eyeliner. Perhaps it was because at some point in the movie they all break out in song. Perhaps it was because the 1980s were never that 80s. Perhaps it was because everything was a garish hyperbole. Perhaps it was because a character pumps his fist while driving away from the camera during a fade out. I don't know what it was that made me hate it so, but if it means trying to watch it again I'm not willing to find out.


I noticed "Fire" was on cable the other night and I began watching it because I couldn't recall anything specific about it other than I remember it being a horrible film when I saw it back in '85. Twenty years later the film is still awful. Besides the synthesizer, the saxophone was the most abused instrument in pop music during the 1980s, as is evident in the title song. Hearing that song again made me want to jab a screwdriver in my ears to end the sonic misery inflicted upon them. And to compound this musical assault Rob Lowe's character played saxophone, and there was one scene where he played a solo that went on and on like he was Charlie Parker, only his shrill tone and playing were more reminiscent of a monkey playing a kazoo. All the characters were intensely unappealing, although I must say they did a great job of casting equally unappealing actors to portray them. Actually I thought Mare Winningham was appealing, and I initially felt sorry for her character because she wore funny underwear, but then near the end of the movie she decides to have sex with Rob Lowe's character who would probably be voted most likely to transfer a variety of sexual diseases if such thing were voted upon.


What happened in the making of this movie so that it ended up as the total mess it is? Just one year after "The Breakfast Club", a brilliant movie with many of the same actors as in "St. Elmo's Fire" (who by the way looked and acted in the latter more like they were still the high school misfits from the former but without the grip or discipline in portraying their roles.

Was it the directing or the writing. Since it was the same person (Joel Schumacher) it must be both. But then Schumacher has since given us "The Phantom of the Opera", "Phone Booth", "A Time to Kill", and two Batman movies, "Batman and Robin" and "Batman Forever" which range from good to great directing. Something went wrong on "StEF" because it has no genius whatsoever, no comedy worth anything, and is very far off the mark on what is truly valuable in life.

Example: The character Wendy (a rich little girl with a heart to do good and help the less fortunate played by Mare Winningham ) reveals to Billy (an unruly slob who cheats on his wife and on his girlfriends, drinks far too much and has no sense of order in his life appropriately played by Rob Lowe) that she is still a virgin. Billy truly see a challenge and possible conquest but Wendy "is not ready". Wendy, in fact is so not ready it is hard to believe she is in this clique of friends. Later in the story, when Billy whose wife has left him taken his child and married another has somehow drawn some of the strings of his life together. Billy is leaving for New York, deserting and abandoning all parental responsibility for his baby daughter, he convinces Wendy that her virginity would be the perfect "going away gift" from her to him. And Wendy, who works as a social worker helping broken families, seems not to be phased at all by this despot. Give me a break. The one thing she can only give once, she gives to a loser who is leaving his family and friends? Schumacher frames this scene as a wonderful and touching moment.

Many more example exist where there is a complete disconnect between what is real and of value being tossed overboard and the acts are made to look like virtue.

I suppose some may say that "that was the 80's" but I remember it was in the "80's" that men began to be held responsible for the children they fathered whether in a marriage or out.

I think this movie is so bad because it is so out of sync with what it really valuable and right.

As for the technique (not the story), it was terrible as well. It is disjointed and feels like a 3 hour movie that has been edited to 1 hour and 40 minutes. Transitions and jumps in time simply do not make sense. Pick up what is on the editing room floor, put it back in and the movie would probably flow much better...but it still is a horrible movie.

Maybe Schumacher has become a better and stronger director since 1986 (he must have) or maybe he was over his head when it came to writing the screenplay for St Elmo's Fire or maybe this group of actors took over the set and went their own way - that is what I really think happened.


I saw this in the theater when it came out, and just yesterday I saw it again on cable. This I was able to reacquainted myself with the feeling of just how revolting this film is. The whole bunch of characters are self-absorbed narcisstic preeners. Worst of all, it reinforces every negative stereotype about 20-something dating, even as it purports to celebrate people "finding themselves". The nice guys finish last, the jerky guys make out great, the jerkiest guys do best. The girls are all boy toy pushovers. Only one character ("Wendy") is seen doing anything remotely useful to society, and she dispenses with her long-saved virginity in a throwaway one-night stand with a scumbag, in a lushly filmed scene that we're supposed to think is romantic. What this really is is Hollywood's concept of young America: permissive, detached, promiscuous, conceited.


I'll probably get a lot of flack for hating this movie- guess I didn't approach it with the proper dewy-eyed nostalgia of the generation before me. But suffice it to say- St Elmo's Fire was pretty crap-freaking- tastic, even as far as Brat Pack films go.

Here is yet another lovely example of the smug, self-indulgent neurosis that is everything 80s (RENT, anyone?) The plot is virtually non- existent and the philosophies are kitchy at best, poorly delivered the rest of the time. The complete lack of anything resembling sympathetic characters doesn't help the situation. There really was no growth, no forward movement at all. Even the climactic suicide scene was effectually neutered by once again refusing to let death or anything resembling reality or adult life enter in.

Each cookie cutter figure simply goes about making you hate them in the blandest, most predictable way possible. The Stalker is a creep for no discernible reason other than he is a Stalker and Andie MacDowell is gorgeous. The Jackass does everything in his power to constantly remind you he is, well, a jackass. The Gorgeous Slut hides really soulful, deep pain with a wild lifestyle. The Poet moods and mopes around for a full 3/4 of the film until he can reveal (!) he actually is full of teddy bears and sunshine and rainbows. The Virgin finally becomes a whole, happy human being after getting every Virgin's desire of one hot roll in the sack with a Jackass before he ditches her to really change (for real this time). The Cheating Bastard cheats until it is time for him to get caught. And finally The Feminist go around dousing holy water on any soul that utters "commitment".

Which brings me to my final beef- what bond of super-cement was holding these people together as friends? I can't imagine being with just one of them- Now think of the vortex created by all that narcissism centered in one bar. And they were all so terrible to each other- heads in toilets, near rape, and sleeping around with everrrryone. The cherry was after two BFFs act like total baboons after screwing the Feminist, she's like, "umm, actually I don't want to be with either of you anymore. Let's be friends! And we can hang out in a totally unawkward way every day knowing that I may hook up with one or the other at any given point, but neither of you are satisfying enough for commitment (NOT THAT WORD!)." And they all smile as if to say, "Golly gee, I never thought of that! What a great idea!"

Only it's not. Kinda in the way that watching this movie is not.


St. Elmo's Fire has no bearing on life after university at all (for the majority of us common folk anyway). Why was this garbage even made? Who can really relate to this? Who lives like these characters? I truly feel sorry for the actors having to deal with such a terrible script. There are some talented young actors in this "film" that have done a good job elsewhere. It must have just been one whole joke to them on set.

I actually found this "film" insulting to my intelligence. The only joy I got from this is hoping that Sir John Hughes had a good ol' laugh when he saw a screening of this the same year his masterpiece of The Breakfast Club was released.

Don't make the same mistake I did of watching this because you enjoy 80's films. It really is that offensive to the genre.


I think I've seen this sort of thing before: college graduates not realizing they have it pretty damn good, all the while, complaining that their lives suck.

This movie is highly derivative of The Big Chill and Reality Bites from what I can make of it: they practically have the same plot.

If anything good came out of this snore-fest, it was the music. That was it.

As far as I'm concerned, I'm not impressed... but then again, I never expected anything less. This movie was directed by the same person that directed Batman and Robin; another movie that should only be viewed with a blindfold in tow.

Now for the verdict: it's a 1 out of 10.