I'd have to admit that the draw of this movie is director Eduardo Sanchez, who helmed the wildly popular and successful Blair Witch Project. Besides, this is an alien movie of sorts, and sounded something like Stephen King's Dreamcatchers, one of those movies that the critics hated, but I enjoyed.

But nope, unfortunately I felt that for the most parts, Altered is a waste of time, so I shall keep this review short. Premises are always promising, and Altered's no different. It tells the story of a group of men who experienced strange encounters when they were younger, and as usual, others will take you as a nutcase imagining stuff. Stories about alien abduction always have to deal with probes into the orifices, so I shall not go into details, but you get the drift it's damn uncomfortable, and something you'd like to forget.

What if you're given a chance for revenge? That is, you manage to successfully hunt down, and capture one alive. What will you do? For this group, it's a gleeful payback time, or so they thought. And this is where the movie begins to develop into a snoozefest, with bad, uninspiring dialogue, and even worse acting. Even if it's low budgeted, there aren't many redeeming factors, be it strength of storyline, or any help from the cast in making their characters just a tad interesting. It's the standard cardboard fare from a vanilla plain script, coupled with some cheap scare tactics employed.

What's good though is the makeup. Much effort has been put into making some of the stuff which I shan't mention, because that'll spoil just the few elements of what makes this movie tolerable. Other than that, there are the usual cheap special effects, blood and gory moments which is nothing you've never seen before.

Watch this only as a last resort. Compared to the other monster movie in town - Feast, this one is less fun, and takes itself too seriously. Bogged down by an uninspiring direction, you've been warned.


My first clue about how bad this was going to be was when the video case said it was from the people who brought us Blair Witch Project which was a masterpiece in comparison to this piece of garbage. The acting was on the caliber of a 6th grade production of Oklahoma and the plot, such as there was, is predictable, boring and inane. 85% of the script is four letter words and innumerable variations on them. Mother F seems to be the "writer's" favorite because it is used constantly. It must have taken all of 10 minutes to write this script in some dive at last call. Thank God I rented it and could jump through most of it on fast forward. Don't waste your time or money with this.


I'm 47 years old and I've spent as much of my life as I can remember, a fan of horror and sci-fi films. Be they silent, black and white, no budget or big budget, there are very few of them that I can't find something to like about. That said, I'll give this movie credit for good gore and creature effects but that's all. This is a case of effects over story. Truth is we live in a time where there is very little left that hasn't been seen in a horror film. Therefor for a film of any kind to really entertain it must have a good, original story. A good story can overcome poor effects and bad acting but a bad story with good acting and good effects is still a bad movie. This movie doesn't even have good acting, only good effects. So unless you can only about the gore, pass this one up.


I felt this movie started out well. The acting was spot on and I felt for all the characters situation, even though the true family unit was not completely revealed. We never got enough info on the father to truly feel his pain for his whole involvement or the build up for his animosity with Tobe. I mean in one scene you see him admiring her for tensity and in another scene he just about takes her head off. Another problem with the movie was it just unraveled and lost all focus by the end, and I was begging for it to just be over with. Any movie with such a long drawn out , and painful ending should never get an automatic rating of 7 or above just for the acting. We are looking at the over all quality of the movie experience. In the case of this movie the end is so bad I seriously contemplated just walking out of the theater. This movie pulled me in then just spit me out.


This film really got off to a great start. It had the potential to turn into a really heartrending, romantic love story with cinematography that recorded the love between "Harlan" and Tobe in long, poetic and idyllic scenes. It really didn't need to be anything more than that, and for a moment there I became excited that someone was finally making a beautiful film for its own sake, another timeless classic, a modern myth perhaps. Why, oh why, then mess it up halfway through by making the lead character (Norton)another psycho? Maybe I'm missing the point, but do we really need another film about psychos? Or is this need in Hollywood to portray the sick side of human nature indicative of a more general malaise in the movie industry? For a moment there, I was going to make a mental note of the director's name; now I'm left feeling indifferent. At least it should be added in the film's defense that all the actors seemed to invest in their roles. Also, Evan Rachel Wood is really lovely to look at and a good actress with lots of potential.


I saw this film in my cinema class. I am glad that I did not pay to see it. I came into it with an open mind, and was even a little excited. I really enjoy Ed Norton and Evan Rachel Wood, and the rest of the cast was interesting. I just never connected with this movie. The acting was great, the cinematography was interesting, but the storyline, or rather, lack thereof, was a problem. There was no central, connecting theme to the movie. Was it a romance between Norton and Wood? Well, no, not really. Was it a western? Kind of, but no. I'm all for twists in movies, I recently saw "Brick" and loved it, but the place that this movie went was just too out there. It was so weird, and if I weren't required to have sat through the whole film, I would have walked out. The writing wasn't terrible, but it was just all over the place. By the time this movie ended, I was just left terribly confused and wishing that it had ended sooner. There was just something about this film that didn't resonate, I understand more offbeat films like "Fight Club", but I just did not care about the characters at all.


The longer this film went on-and it seemed to tediously go on for ever- the more annoyed I became, as quite frankly, what a waste of time sitting through this total nonsense. How on earth do people get to make films like this,or indeed receive finance for such rubbish? Don't be fooled by the relatively high ratings on IMDb as it just proves you can fool some of the people all the time. And in this picture the main players have an obsession with guns, so it is not difficult to work out the way this movie will ultimately unfold. America can never understand that the rest of the world finds it bizarre how society in the USA has such an obscene and fatal 'gun culture'.

Anyhow:

The lead actor portrays a loser who escapes into a fantasy world of being a cowboy in an Urban sprawl.He comes across a family with two spoiled brat children, a teenage girl and boy; taken care of by a strict single parent father who can barely cope. The cowboy is seduced by the teenage girl or vice-versa, and the impressionable boy is seemingly taken in by the lunacy of the loser.

The cowboy spends the whole time in a state of unreality and depression.A total loser who prefers to go to the beach then work for living, and then commits a burglary on his family as he is too lazy to make money legally.

Ask yourself:

Who wants to watch either a sad failed loser in a fantasy world holding a death wish, or indeed view a poor family who are in effect not much better than white trash?!

This film is pointless drivel.

It only saves itself from getting the lowest mark possible by some half listen able music:

2/10.


was sort of enjoying this movie until the issues of Ed Norton's facial hair. Without revealing any plot details--on one afternoon he was sporting a light beard but by the same evening the beard was gone and a very luxuriant moustache was in place. It was much fuller than the moustache that went with the beard. Later on, in the course of a dark night in the open the moustache was gone and he appeared cleans haven. This was on an occasion where stopping to shave wouldn't be an option. These continuity discrepancies totally distracted me from the rest of the movie and ruined any credibility it had previously had. Also, I found the lengthy scene of the cowboy alone in his bedroom was way too reminiscent of De Niro in Taxi Driver. Even if it was meant to be an homage it was laid on too thickly for this viewer.


I really wanted to like this film, but the story is ridicules. I don't want to spoil this film, - don't worry right from the begin you know something bad is going to happen - but here's an example of how sloppy this film was put together. The Cowboy and "Twig" ride up the ridge. The Cowboy has a handle bar mustache. The Cowboy and "Twig" get into a shoot out and race half way down the ridge. The Cowboy is clean shaven through out the rest of the film. Sometime between the gun fight and the ride down the mountain the cowboy has had time to shave, in dark, on the back of a horse.

To be fair, the acting by the four main characters is solid.


OK, the story - a simpleminded loony enters a life of bored to death young chick and her kid brother and wreaks havoc in their lives - is mildly interesting one. Anyway, ideas are nothing (everyone has some...) - the execution is everything.

This is what bothered me with this flick. And it did bother me immensely. The rhythm (directing, editing) was slow, the pace was uneven and the climax expected. We have seen those frigging highways five, six, seven times - why? Norton character's troubles were seen as a childish game, not enough deep to understand his problems / soul / blah and to root for or against him. Is he a coward, a manipulator or just a loony? References to the "Taxi Driver" were ridiculous and unnecessary and for certain not in favor for this flick (or to E.N. for that matter).

And IMHO, it is cowardly executed at the end. Cheap emotional tricks for teenage lovers somewhere in Mid America. This guy should have killed the kid, blamed the father, create a real havoc. Or the kid should have killed the father at the end etc., but no, we have gotten cheesy ending where kids miss the loony, the father is puzzled over his own life and relationship with them and the loony, of course, dies. The happy dysfunctional family stays unharmed, safe and happily bored again so we could enjoy our pop-corns, undisturbed.

And that scene where the loony enters the movie, oh my God, I would have to think long and hard to find something stupider than that! You do not shoot such a scene with a hidden camera and hidden crew. Creators of that movie probably thought that was a good idea but it was more than annoying. Again, if you're a 16 years old girl somewhere in Kansas nowhere or whatever-where and dream about having sex with a crazy man twice your age, OK, then you might enjoy this movie and its "message".


What starts out as a gentle country yarn, inoffensive and mildly enjoyable romantic tale changes pace as Edward Norton's initially charming Harlan gradually reveals more about himself and things take a turn for the sinister, as the film gradually changes from a southern romance to a modern wild western.

An amiable rancher (Norton) wanders into town and charms a young girl (Evan Rachel Wood), seemingly rescuing her from a dead-end existence with her bad-tempered father with a whirlwind romance, but it gradually becomes apparent that there is more to this cowboy than meets the eye.

Edward Norton  a real chameleon actor (with changing facial hair to match) playing a country hick, accent slightly dodgy but maybe because he's merely trying to act the part without worrying about the accent. He certainly makes it appear effortless to make all the nuanced little adjustments as we learn more about Harlan. However, with too many small changes it means we are never sure exactly where Harlan is coming from, and what seemed like a good performance from Norton gradually becomes confused. Evan Rachel Wood is likable without ever really having a great deal to do other than bat her eyelids at Norton.

Down in the Valley strikes as a slightly uneven tale due to its change of pace, and by never really making the protagonist's motives clear the audience's sympathies for the characters remain uncertain. Should we like this drifter or not? Even after a dramatic turn of events it remains unclear. This ambiguity is to the film's detriment, as if the writer could not make up their mind what kind of story they wanted to tell and settled for somewhat of a hotch-potch. Had the film remained one or the other it might have been a solid film, but as it is what we are left with is something of a mess. Fans of old-fashioned romance will enjoy a portion of the film but will be put off by the darkening tone. Completist fans of Norton aside (or fans of the lush scenery of the San Fernando valley), give this a miss.


I cannot stand this show! Has there ever been even one redeeming quality, one funny punchline, or one plot line that "didn't" make the average viewer want to drown himself in a bowl of soggy cornflakes?

The voices. Oh, those horrible, wretched voices. Akin to repeatedly dragging a set of fine cutlery across a dusty blackboard, each character is uniquely annoying in his or her aptitude for shrill, nasal vocals. Cosmo sounds like a whining mongrel, Vicky sounds like a stereotypical shrew, and Timmy's dad makes every line sound like a bad impersonation of a game show host (Guy Smiley from "Sesame Street" comes to mind).

The animation is awful; even the producers of "Yu-Gi-Oh!" laugh at the overwhelmingly bad artwork on this show. Every character has buck teeth, or a square head, or a head three sizes too big for his or her body. And what's with having the characters speak every single line wide-eyed and grinning, as though posing for a photo op with the president? Then, there is the fact that every character on the show is completely moronic. Not since the subtle grace of Amelia Bedelia, Homer Simpson, and Buddy Lembeck of "Charles in Charge" fame have characters been portrayed as so unrealistically dumb. Usually "unrealistic" is synonymous with "unfunny", and that is most definitely the case here. There hasn't been this much slapstick based on cluelessness since "The Naked Gun 33 1/3"...and at least Leslie Nielson was good at it.

Finally, the premise of the show (and it's the same every single episode, so big time spoiler alert here): Timmy wishes for something with his two "Fairly Oddparents", something goes wrong, there's always some contrived reason why he can't immediately reverse course and wish away the damage, and then everything turns out just fine in the end. Oh, and on a side note, Timmy's parents never believe him when he complains about Vicky, and they continue to employ her at every opportunity. Maybe it's just me, but it seems that a kids' show containing the subtle message that it pretty much does no good whatsoever to tell on an abusive babysitter probably isn't a great idea.

If you're writing a paper and want to cite an example of just how far the quality of cartoons has fallen, "The Fairly Odd Parents" has to be a great place to start. A prime example of television producers throwing together a worthless product aimed at kids with little or no effort simply because they know that someone somewhere will watch it.


*Spoilers and extreme bashing lay ahead*

When this show first started, I found it tolerable and fun. Fairly Oddparents was the kind of cartoon that kids and adults liked. It also had high ratings along with Spongebob. But it started to fall because of the following crap that Butch Hartman and his team shoved into the show.

First off, toilet humor isn't all that funny. You can easily pull off a fast laugh from a little kiddie with a burp, but that's pretty much the only audience that would laugh at such a cliché joke. Next there are the kiddie jokes. Lol we can see people in their underwear and we can see people cross-dressing. LOLOLOL!!! I just can't stop laughing at such gay bliss! Somebody help me! But of course, this show wouldn't suck that bad if it weren't for stereotypes. Did you see how the team portrayed Australians? They saw them as nothing but kangaroo-loving, boomerang-throwing simpletons who live in a hot desert. But now... Is the coup de grace of WHY this show truly sucks the loudest of them all... OVER-USED JOKES!!! The show constantly pulls up the same jokes (the majority of them being unfunny) thinking it is like the greatest thing ever! Cosmo is mostly the one to blame. I hated how they kept on mentioning "Super Toilet" (which also has a blend of kiddish humor in it just as well) and Cosmo would freak out. And who could forget that dumb battery ram joke that every goddamn parent in Dimmsdale would use in that one e-mail episode? You know, the one in which every single parent (oblivious to other parents saying it) would utter the EXACT same sentence before breaking into their kid's room? Yes, it may be first class humor to some people, but it is pure s*** to others.

If I'm not mistaken, I do believe Butch Hartman said something about ending the show. Thank God! Everyone around my area says it's, like, the funniest Nickelodeon show ever. I just can't agree with it I think it's just another pile of horse dung that we get on our cartoon stations everyday, only worse.


I first started watching this show probably around the year of 2003 or 2004 with my friends. Of course, at the time I was younger and enjoyed some of the jokes on this show. I was 11 in 2003, and I am 14 now (2007). Though my age probably plays a major role in how I judge this show, after reading other's reviews, I have come to see that after the third season, this show went down the tubes. I agree. This show is obnoxious, repetitive and usually focuses on the same plot.

The show revolves around Timmy Turner, who was granted two Fairy Godparents because basically his life was horrible - his parents were never around, and he had a nasty baby-sitter. The plot of the entire show is that this kid (Timmy) and his Godparents always wish up some destruction that cannot be prevented by making another wish, because something in "Da Rules" says they can't. The show has a lot of lines that keep being repeated, like "magic cannot break true love, super toilet" or even just some scummy jokes lines that Nickelodeon probably thought was funny and decided to put in the episode various times.

The show is aimed at kids younger than 10, because it involves gross situations and "kid humor" that most kids of my age wouldn't care for. The character voice selection could've been better too. Timmy has an extremely loud, shrill, feminine voice as does Cosmo. Wanda sounds like an old lady. Timmy's dad sounds like some announcer or game show host, Timmy's mom's voice is too exaggerated to sound feminine. Attitudes in this show are: in some episodes, Timmy talks back and acts spoiled and snobbish. Wanda apparently is smart and wise. Cosmo is stupid, dumb and incapable of thinking as is Timmy's dad. Timmy's mom seems to end up doing whatever Timmy's dad does.

The show is too far flung from reality to get my likings anymore. Maybe as a younger kid, I could see more of the humor in this show, but as I grow up, it really grows old. And not to sound conceded or "trashing" but the show does have that mentality that makes you want to commit homicidal activity towards the characters. A show like this just has to be your attitude, if you know what I mean. If not, it basically disgusts you.


Seriously, the fact that this show is so popular just boggles the mind. This show isn't funny, it isn't clever, it isn't original, it's just a steaming pile of bull crap. Let me start with the characters. The characters are all one-dimensional morons with loud, exaggerated voices that just sound like fingernails on a blackboard. The voice acting could've been better. Then there's the animation. MY GOD, it hurts my eyes just looking at it. Everything is too flat, too pointy, too bright, and too candy coated. Then there's the humor, or lack thereof. It's completely idiotic! They just take these B-grade jokes that aren't even that funny in the first place and then repeat them to death. They also throw in some pointless potty humor which sickens me. And finally, last and least, the music. It's just plain annoying. It sounds like it was composed on a child's computer and generates no emotion whatsoever. I wish there was a score lower than 1, I really do. This show seriously needs to be canceled. It's a show I try to avoid like the plague. Whenever I hear the theme song I immediately turn the TV off. If you've never watched this show then don't. Watch quality programming like The Simpsons or Futurama.


During the first 3 seasons Fairly Odd Parents was as tasty as hard candy, bright and sweet and addictive. Now it's as tasty as Pepto-Bismol. And unfortunately Pepto-Bismol is what you'll need after viewing the more recent episodes, where all the sweetness has been replaced by insults and violence resulting in no laughs. Cosmo, once one of the more endearing Nick characters, has devolved into an abusive unfunny cretin that the cast of Family Guy wouldn't even want to know. Timmy has become a selfish arrogant jerkwad that Bart Simpson would happily beat the snot out of (and given Timmy's snottiness, that would take a lot of beating). And poor Wanda...a real charmer who's become the victim of her husband and godchild, she's now labeled a "nag" for caring about the well-being of others. Plus Cosmo's stupidity causes pain to everyone else but he's never punished for it, nor does he learn any lessons. Which pretty much sums up Butch Hartman's attitude towards kids: they're crude, vulgar and not too bright. Thank god this crummy toon has been cancelled, along with Butch Hartman's darling, Danny Phantom. At least Butch got what he deserved - unlike Cosmo.


There are some redeeming qualities to this show. One is that the theme tune does have a decent melody. The show does have a nice premise. Also, I am probably in the minority, but I like Wanda. I like the fact she is caring, and is more a mother figure to Timmy. However, despite all this, I do not like this show, it isn't excrement but I do find it very annoying.

I wouldn't say that it is the best animated show on Planet Earth. When I use that term for an animated TV show, I think of Peter Pan and the Pirates, I think of Darkwing Duck, I think of Scooby Doo and I think of Talespin. And I hope I am not the only one who really likes the Wild Thornberrys and resent the fact it gets poked fun at. Nor do I think Fairly Odd Parents is the worst animated show on Planet Earth. I accept it's annoying, and in some ways overrated, but it isn't the worst show on Nickolodean. That is Chalk Zone, god that show is unwatchable. But the worst animated show I've ever seen is Shaggy and Scooby Doo:Get a Clue, which is crudely animated, unfunny and frankly a disgrace.

One thing I don't like about this show is the animation. The characters, forgive me if I offend, have very weird facial features, and a lot of the backgrounds are dull and lack the colour that make Spongebob Squarepants and Wild Thornberrys so nice to look at. The characters with the exception of Wanda I find very annoying. I can't believe such a talented voice actress like Tara Strong(aka. Charendoff) voiced Timmy. Timmy I don't find very likable as a lead character at all, he is annoying and sometimes patronising, and he is a poor decision maker as well. And his voice gets on my nerves. I actually like Strong but not in this show. Another annoying character is Cosmo, the supposedly funny character. Instead, his jokes are as unfunny as they could become. They are either a) contrived, or b) over familiar. Timmy's parents are awful characters, who don't give a toss about their son, and their personalities wear well thin.

The story lines are very unoriginal on the most part, and I keep thinking, where have I seen this before. The episodes after the arrival of the baby I thought were unwatchable. Even worse is the scripts, very unfunny, childish, witless and suffer from a complete lack of energy.

All in all, not the worst show ever, but pretty poor for an animation fan, and fairly uncomfortable to sit through. 3/10- there are redeeming qualities, and I completely understand if people like it. Bethany Cox


I really hate this retarded show, it SUCKS! big time, and personally I think it is insulting to fairy kind (if you believe in fairies that is); I mean the people who had come up with such crap 'ought to have their heads examine huh? and also there is a LOT of craziness (the evil school teacher, which I think is getting really old) and also stupidity (the boy's parents and fairy godfather) in this show - two of the things that I dispised and loathe in the WHOLE world (especially stupidity).

Overall, I say that this show is so f*****' annoying and should not be seen by prying eyes at ALL (it would make'em bleed to death)!


This gets a two because I liked it as a kid, but it became so redundant that I just started to hate it... I can't give this a descriptive review because it would be restating one thing after the other, I probably wouldn't say anything that everyone else didn't say already.

The only other thing about this show is that it's pretty nasty, with the kid with the boil to that twisted babysitter to the stupidity that runs around and about in it. I have a cousin that loves this show and he's the strangest and dumbest person I have met. This show should be pulled from the air. It's always the same thing over and over... They need to put better shows on Nick. I'm getting really really tired of stuff like this.


What a HUGE pile of dung. Shot-on-video (REALLY crappy camcorder, NOT digital) pile of garbage. It is without a doubt, the stupidest thing ever made. The fact that this crap was actually released is completely asanine. Everyone who sees it will become stupider for having watched it. Seriously. I felt like it killed several brain cells after I watched this garbage. The positive reviews of this a$$crap were obviously made by the "filmmaker" (and I use the term VERY loosely) himself and/or his family and friends because no normal person with the intelligence of a squirrel would honestly like this waste of life. Trust me, stay the hell away from this video. You'll thank me for it. Avoid it like herpes.


I've never actually seen this film but can tell you one thing about its production. While a comedy/oldies radio DJ in 1988, I got a call from the production company. They asked if I'd write and record a bit they'd drop into the soundtrack as sounds eminating from a TV (the television screen itself would never be shown). I said sure, wrote a parody of '50s sci-fi monster clichés, rounded up some sound effects and called in another DJ, Pam Landry, to play the female part. As she happened to be on the air at the time, she put on a long song, joined me at the mike in the production room and we cut the voicetrack in a single take. Giggling, she then went back to her show while I mixed in the goofy sound effects. We'd have never done it if we'd known that "Woodchipper Massacre" was going to be such a turkey -- but, then again, we never got paid for our efforts, either! -- Gary Theroux


This pile of sh!t is tied in my book as the worst thing ever made. I can't BELIEVE that someone actually relased this CRAP, let alone acually MADE it. HORRIBLE, HORRIBLE, HORRIBLE. Not even worth mentioning the damn story or any details about it. THAT's how bad it actually is. Avoid it like SARS!


This series had potential, but I suppose the budget wouldn't allow it to see that potential. An interesting setup, not dissimilar to "lost" it falls flat after the 1st episode. The whole series, 6 episodes, could have made a compelling 90 minute film, but the makers chose to drag it on and on. Many of the scenes were unbearably slow and long without moving the action forward. The music was very annoying and did not work overall. There were few characters we cared about as their characters did not grow during the time frame--- well, one grew a bit. The ending was as terrible as the rest of series. The only kudos here is to the art dept and set dressers, they created an interesting look, too bad the writer and director lacked the foresight to do something interesting with that element


No artful writeup here because it doesn't deserve one. Not an art film. Not even one of those 'hidden' gems. You know, like those movies you hear about through a friend who saw this amazing movie downtown where they show all the good independents and art films.

Just pack it into the christmas boxes, and dispose of quickly.


Not only does this movie have a poor plot, bad direction, and terrible acting, its opens up a whole new meaning to racism.

In this film "White" chicks are the sluts, "White" boys are the wana-be gangsters, and successful (yes again) "White" businessmen are revolting toilet shitters.

I just wonder what would happen if I made the exact same movie with the exact same story line and script, only I made it about Caucasians. "He dude, its good to finally see your've stopped dating those black chicks".

Nobody seems to notice it, but watch this film again and you'll vomit at how they have portrayed the new Zealand "white boys". All of a sudden its white folks who are the main cause of gang aggression, and whores out for a quick bang. Only Samoans girls have a heart, there's no such thing as a non-slutty white girl.

It disgusts me that they couldn't make this film without giving the Caucasian community in New Zealand a repulsive profile. If you think I'm overgeneralizing, go watch this film, and see what you make of the "white boys". Just because Samoans choose to call us "white boys" in actual life, doesn't mean its funny. If I said hey black boy I'll loose my teeth.

Don't see this movie. Don't waste your money. Don't be racist.


The clichéd Polynesian males drink, fight and make a stream of sexist, stupid and unfunny remarks. Real life Polynesians are much funnier than these stereotyped, cardboard characters. The supposedly Samoan girl didn't look or act Samoan at all, seemed more like the stock white female who has sex with anyone on a whim. With weak as water story lines you can't say anything about the acting - even the most brilliant actors could do nothing with this script. It's sad to see Polynesian actors willing to play such sad stereotypes in a film with not one good scene, and only two or three 'jokes'. What a waste of Kiwi taxpayers' money, what a lost opportunity to make a great film about a vibrant community. It's better not to make movies if they're as bad and mindless as this.


It seems to me, as a recent film school graduate, that in these times of New Zealand film reaching new heights, the general public seems to think every New Zealand film made is great. Sione's Wedding proves this is dead wrong.

It's completely overrated and not funny, and far from the 'hilarious' film other users of IMDb have commented. The only really funny thing I found in this film was Derek the wannabe black guy, but other than that the jokes were recycled crap that we'd all heard before.

Being of half-Samoan decent, I wanted to see how the film was going to deal with Polynesian representation. It was a complete balls-up - I know it's a supposed comedy, but I didn't feel like the characters had anything new to say about Polynesian identity, even if it was in a tongue-in-cheek manner. I was most disappointed with the ending of the film and the resolution of the character's relationships - Mikaele was the player who only messed around with white women, comes to slightly turn his ways when the 'Dusky Maiden' comes to town, has an epiphany that maybe he should start looking for a stable relationship, then at the very last minute rejects it and accepts his position as a Polynesian Playboy for palagi women. I didn't understand why they did this.

All in all, it was very disappointing. My whole family went to see it expecting to have a good laugh, but ended up being really bitter about paying to see it at the cinema. The jokes are lame at best, the acting, particularly of Sefa's girlfriend, APPALLING, and honestly I would've been happy if I had got my hands on one of those pirated copies of the film to save myself the $15 ticket price.

I think the only good thing to come from the movie is that it's the second step (behind No. 2, of course, a far superior film to this one) in the birth of Polynesian cinema. I hope Pacific filmmakers in the future can learn from Sione's Wedding in how to NOT reflect Polynesia and have something more meaningful and sensible to say. Even if it is done in a comedic fashion.


Probably New Zealands worst Movie ever made

The Jokes They are not funny. Used from other movies & just plain corny The acting Is bad even though there is a great cast

The story is Uninteresting & Boring Has more cheese then pizza huts cheese lovers pizza kind of like the acting Has been do 1,000 times before

I watched this when it came on TV but was so boring could only stand 30 minutes of it.

This movie sucks

Do not watch it,

Watch paint dry instead


Despite the rave reviews this flick has garnered in New Zealand, any hype surrounding the production is sadly undeserved. Apart from a clichés-only plot, the movie is let down by some weak acting, accents, and overall lack of tension.

Whilst having the overall look of a big budget (for NZ), the feel is decidedly small-town Kiwi...

Has anyone not seen The Brothers ?? ( http://imdb.com/title/tt0250274/ ) Those who have will pick the similarities straightaway....I've heard comments that scenes like the boys playing basketball etc were shot to poke fun at the clichéd "boys talking crap", but it comes across as forced...

I believe Oscar Keightley sees himself as deeply ironic, but again his delivery always seems merely vaguely self conscious.

Those who have any doubts left at all that Samoans-living-in-NZ culture has been deeply , hopefully not permanently ,affected by American speech , culture, and everything inbetween will certainly have their minds made up at the end of this movie.

Robbie magasiva always looks good on screen , but is let down by the script..

It always rubs me up the wrong way when a "comedy" has scenes that are set up in such an obvious way, you are left feeling like having a good groan at the clichéd punchline - see the wanna be white boy...

I know someone who found this movie hilarious -however, that person has the brains of a tadpole, and would struggle to spell her name if offered a million dollars....

That kinda sums up the mentality of this flick , OK but not great , fun but not funny.....Wake up NZ - this is NOT a 5 star movie despite all the glowing (middle class white guilt ?? :-) ) reviews....

My advice ? if you watch it, get drunk first!!!


The most positive thing I can say for this dull witted local "comedy" production is that it's inoffensive. In fact it's so astonishingly bland that one wonders how many dozens of re-writes by committee it went through to have such a complete removal of personality. It's not witty, it's not entertaining, it's not insightful, and it's not charming. It's just a staid, laughless, progression of four losers who must change their ways - and their attitudes towards women - to be allowed to attend their best friend's wedding.

With acting that would be sub par for the local amateur dramatics society, a plot line so tired it'd make a forty third season of 'Allo 'Allo look fresh, and jokes about as humorous as watching decaying vegetables, Sione's Wedding nonetheless scored ten (yes 10) nominations in the NZ film awards recently.

Fortunately, somebody saw sense and it didn't win any.


I just sat in the theater bored as hell, i wanted to leave halfway through the movie. The plot is simple 4 Samoan guys wreck weddings. So They have to bring a dates in order to get into the wedding. Yawn.

The thing that peeved me off the most was the so-called crude jokes... They were highly UNfunny, clichéd and thrown in your face, to make you get into the already dull movie. The acting was below-average and i felt this movie just went on and on about nothing but a bunch of unfunny jokes and a predictable plot.

All in all, one of the worse movies i've seen of 2006, unfunny, bad acting, just ugly.

Well thank god a friend shouted me.

Avoid.


Ever wonder why Pacific Islanders seem to automatically assume the sense of humour of Black Americans? regardless of their ethnic origins? Well this film will not provide any answers to this often pondered question - but it will provide an excellent case study.

From its onset this film acts as a sort of "Old School" for Pacific Island New Zealanders, which immediately raises the question what exactly is the point of such a task. Is it meant to perpetuate ingrained stereotypes of Pacific Island New Zealanders? or is it intended to exploit this potential market? The story is weak, jokes humorless, and the ending is expected. This film has done nothing for New Zealand cinema, as it is merely an appropriated romantic comedy that is devoid of any merit.


Avoid this crap at all costs. Bad script, bad directing, bad acting, bad editing, bad sound, and bad music. Get the idea? This movie tries to be western flavored, it's not. It tries to be hard core violent, it's not. It tries to present a fresh look at an old genre, it doesn't. The actors try there best, and my heart goes out to them. But with such inane material to work with it's hard to make something shine. To me this has all of the looks of a "fresh outta film school gonna set the world on fire" first attempt. Freshmen film makers often bite off more that they, or their budget, can chew. The best thing they can do is to take a few steps back, reassess what is possible, and work within their limited budget the next time out.


I can see where the film makers were going with this. But they never really reach their destination. It's supposed to be a homage to Spaghetti westerns albeit set in a sort of mythical modern time frame." But unfortunately it fall short in its attempt. It doesn't have that gritty realism that spaghetti westerns are known for. The characters are not vile and desperate enough like their Italian western counterparts. And, failing these two points, it lacks the humor of a successful parody. In fact it looks like they intended to make a serious film, but upon completion realized they had missed the mark so far that it couldn't possibly be taken seriously. Unfortunately, they also missed the humor mark by a mile. A whole lotta bad movie!


Sadly IMDb does not allow me to rate Judges lower than 1. What a shame. This ghastly movie is so bad that I actually turned the damned thing off well before the ending. The script had a few bright moments, but the directing, editing, acting, audio quality, and especially timing on line delivery was so abhorrent as make Judges utterly unbearable.

Judges was advertised as being like a modern day comic book style western, but in reality was nothing of the sort. What it is most like is dog poop on the bottom of your shoe. You can try to pretend it is okay, but it just keeps on stinking.

Why video stores think it is okay to carry this kind of crap with constant gaps in the audio and worse than high school drama class acting is beyond me. We rent movies in order to see something better that what is on television. But Judges is worse than the most pathetic SciFi Channel original. I intend to demand my money back from Hollywood Video.


The plot is rocky. The acting is somewhere south of a Jr. High School play. The cinematography is not bad but it looks like it was cut with a machete. I couldn't decide of this was an intentionally hokey flick or if the people behind it actually thought they were making a good film. Think Death Valley Days meets Mayberry RFD. People running around in a 'lawless' modern town wearing quick-draw 6 gun rigs. It has more than its fair share of 'cutsey' stuff. Picture the Good Guys pulling up to an old farm house, and parking the Ford Mustang right in front of a hitching rail. Picture the clerk in a hotel watching an obviously western (hemisphere) movie sporting a Japanese sound track but with English sub-titles. It's all really strange but might be improved if watching it while partaking in a little peyote. It's a real curiosity with modern parallels to every western movie cliché you can think of. There's even a modern version of the good hearted dance-hall girl, AND a twanging Jew's-harp in the soundtrack. Really! If someone brings this to your home for a Saturday night movie session, tell 'em your DVD player died.


It's sad when you can see what a movie was attempting to do, and it is quite obvious that it fell far far short of the mark. Film students should take this as a lesson and a warning. Would be graduate has an idea. He wants total control. So he writes, directs, produces, his cinematic masterpiece all by himself. Usually, his concept is far beyond his budget. Usually he writes an overblown script full of every tag line he can come up with. Usually, he is more interested in the grand sweep of the story rather than on the nitty gritty of working with actors on individual scenes. Usually, he ends up with a movie that is feeble in it's attempt to create miracles on a tiny budget. Usually, he ends up with a series of encounters (we cannot do justice by calling them scenes) that feel like they were written by a 12 year old. And usually he ends up with badly acted scenes that fail to grab the viewer. When you look at Judges from this perspective you can immediately tell it's just the usual fare.


I had high hopes for this movie. The theater monologue is great and Nic Balthazar is a very interesting man, with a lot of experience and knowledge when it comes to movies.

I am a fan of a lot of Belgian movies, but this movie is bad. It's completely unbelievable that actors who are 34 are suddenly playing the roles of teenagers. The "linguistic games" were hideous and over the top. Nothing about the film seemed real to me. The ending was way too deus ex machina for me.

I am very disappointed and think I wasted an hour and a half of my life.


Oh my goodness. This was a real big mess that just couldn't help itself. Jeffrey (Jon Heder) is a 29 year old man still living with his mum (Diane Keaton) and not planning on going anywhere. Until his mother meets a rich businessman named Mert (Jeff Daniels) who she may be getting married to.

It would have been an OK movie if Heder didn't play his Jeffrey so annoying, from the very start there is no chance of liking him and it only gets worse and worse. In the end, we are supposed to like him, but there was no reason to as he hadn't changed from the selfish brute that he was at the beginning of the movie.

Keaton doesn't look to even be trying and is in horrible form after 2007's Because I Said So. Not to mention the shocking chemistry between Heder and Keaton, and where supposed to believe that their mother and son? The only saving grace is Jeff Daniels and Anna Faris although they don't look very interested either. Apart from a few little smiles, this film really doesn't deserve to be called a comedy simply because there is barely anything to laugh at! If your in the mood for a recent Diane Keaton flick watch Mad Money or Smother which are a lot better than this abysmal effort.


Starts really well, nice intro and build up for the main characters but after about 5 minutes, the charm is lost.

The character is in the same mould as the main protagonist from American Pie and Loser without the supporting cast or innovative storyline that made the Pie movies more of a commercial success.

Let's be honest - Heder's acting was pretty poor. Keaton, Daniels and Faris did their best but had no substantial plot or script to get their teeth into The movie just plods on without any pace or clear logical storyline justifying its length.

The ending is about as predictable as they come - so predictable I've ticked the spoilers box for this one line.

My advice: avoid at all costs unless you really really have nothing else to do/listen to or watch and even then you'll feel the producers just cheated you out of an hour and a half of your life.


...except for Jon Heder. This guy tanked the entire movie.

The plot sounded entertaining. A 29 year old slacker son(Heder)still lives with widowed mom (Keaton)who happens to meet a new love (Daniels). Slacker son is jealous and anxious to lose his comfortable life and tries to sabotage the relationship. He also meets a girl(Faris).

I really liked the performance of Daniels and especially Faris but whoever casted Hader would be better of selling hot dogs at the beach. Heders performance is annoying, which would be a good thing since he plays an annoying guy, problem is he is to bad an actor to loose this act making this guy likable in the finale. At the end you still wish you can personally punch the guy in the face and you're upset about the end. In the future every movie with this guy will be a no go for me!


The wife and I saw a preview of this movie while watching another DVD and thought "Jon Heder, Diane Keaton, Jeff Daniels and Eli Wallach, it's gotta be better than summer reruns, so I ordered it from local library. Well, any episode of "Lawrence Welk" would bring more laughs than "Mama's Boy". I actually felt sorry for the actors for having to read the script in the privacy of their own homes and I couldn't imagine what it must have been like for them to have to actually say their lines in front of a camera. Perhaps, at least, maybe next time they're offered a movie of this sort, they'll "Just Say No!' A one anna two....


This movie is poorly conceived, poorly acted, and poorly written.

Jon Heder is terribly annoying, and cannot escape the same Napolean Dynamite routine. Self-obsessed and ignorant.

Furthermore, Diane Keaton plays the same manish, overly obsessed mother, who cares too much and yet not nearly enough about the lives of her children (see Because I Said So).

Anna Faris, though i generally like her, plays a vapid idiot in this film as well.

Jeff Daniels is passable but nothing special.

Please, skip this film if you want to keep your soul.


Yet another "son who won't grow up" flick, and just the other recent like entries. Heder in another bad wig, channeling Napoleon for, what, the third time? Anna Faris is forgettable, as always; Jeff Daniels phoned this one in from another state, at least; and Diane Keaton...how does one become typecast this late in a career? Do not bother. Nothing is said here that hasn't been covered many times over. I will say this; it's about a hundred times better than "Failure To Launch". There are very few amusing bits in the movie, unless you think Eli Wallach cursing is funny. Ha, Ha! He's old and he dropped the f-bomb! Tee, hee, hee. Pitiful!


John Heder was absolutely horrendous in this movie. I felt like I was watching a bad college kid act for the first time in a student film. Anna Farris was par for the course, not good, but not horrible (plus she's cute). Dianne Keaton should have known better. Jeff Daniels was the only saving grace in this movie (even though it was poor judgement on his part as well).

All in all, I would avoid this at all costs. I'm just glad I didn't pay to see it!

John Heder will forever be stuck in the typecast role of' the dorky kid,' unless he does some SERIOUS work on his acting chops.


...in an otherwise ghastly, misbegotten, would-be Oedipal comedy.

I was the lone victim at a 7:20 screening tonight (3 days after the movie opened) , so there is some satisfaction in knowing that moviegoers heeded warnings.

The bloom is off Jon Heder's rose. The emerging double chin isn't his fault; but rehashing his geeky kid shtick in another bad wig simply isn't working. It would be another crime if this were to be Eli Wallach's last screen appearance. Diane Keaton will probably survive having taken this paycheck - basically because so few will have seen her in this, the very worst vehicle she's chosen in the last few weeks.

Sitting alone in the theater tonight I came alive (laughed, even) whenever Daniels was given the latitude in which to deliver the film's sole three dimensional character. He really is among our very best actors.

In summary, even Jeff Daniels's work can't redeem this picture.


You have to respect this movie. It may be "just a dumb kid's movie" but it's the #1 most frequently requested film title in online movie forums, requested by people who remember the story but can't remember the title. Therefore what follows is a much-needed, detailed plot description, since I haven't been able to find such a description anywhere else on the Internet.

A typical 2-story house is shown in suburbia. 7-year-old Bridget narrates about suspecting something is going on since she and her 11-year-old brother Andrew are getting presents from their parents for no apparent reason. Bridget's present is a stuffed penguin that she immediately names Sweet William. Bridget describes her relatives: Aunt Ruth, a bossy nurse taking care of grandmother, Grams the hugging grandmother who makes dolls out of socks, and her brother Andrew, who's into electronics and is grumpy. Grams accidentally hangs up on the lieutenant-governor, which indicates she's getting in the way while living with the family. The two children eat breakfast while the adults discuss moving Grams to a retirement home. Bridget makes an awful-looking pancake sandwich containing cereal, eggs, bacon, strawberries, and syrup, as Andrew looks on incredulously. The two kids then discuss Grams, and Andrew says bluntly that Grams is being "put out to pasture." Bridget talks with Grams in the attic, has a play tea party with Sweet William in her bedroom, then a living doll unexpectedly pops out of her bedroom closet mirror.

Bridget and the living doll become acquainted. The curly-haired living female doll is named Huggins and lives in Huggaland. Bridget gives Huggins a baseball cap from Andrew's room. Huggins hides under some laundry when Bridget's mother comes by, then the mother throws the laundry into the washing machine with Huggins in it. Bridget rescues Huggins and dries her off with a hair drier. They discuss the problem with Grams getting old and having to move away, Huggins says Bridget could talk to the bookworm in Huggaland about it, since he knows everything. They step through the mirror to visit Huggaland, but one of Bridget's tennis shoes becomes lodged in the mirror.

Rather than walk around with one shoe, Bridget goes without shoes in Huggaland. They immediately meet Hugsy, a curly-haired living boy doll in Huggaland. Huggins gives Hugsy the baseball cap. They also meet Tickles, Bubbles, Impkins, and Tweaker, and all the dolls sing a song while sitting on a bridge. Hugsy takes Bridget and Huggins in his hugwagon to see the bookworm, who lives atop a stack of giant books. The bookworm consults "the old encyclopedia" and finds that old age can be cured by eating the fruit of the "youngberry tree." However, only one such tree exists, and it's in the country of Shrugs, ruled by the mad queen of quartz. The only way to travel to Shrugs is to jump down a deep hole that is located inside a nearby giant book.

Bridget and the two dolls gulp three times, jump down the hole, and tumble out. Soon they walk down a sideways sidewalk, hear the sea of glass breaking, and fall off the sidewalk when the sideways gravity ends. They encounter "the hairy behemoth," which looks like a mastodon, has four tusks, and breathes fire out its trunk. But Hugsy boldly goes over and hugs the behemoth, who thereby turns into a baby elephant whose name is Hodgepodge. Hodgepodge had been under a spell by the queen, and owes Hugsy a favor, so they all ride on Hodgepodge's back to the castle. They enter the castle, are surrounded by troll-like beings, the queen (Queen Admira) comes, and Bridget asks for a few youngberries. The queen refuses, then eats one for herself, and brags about her own youthful good looks while looking in a hand mirror. Hodgepodge faints when the queen says he should be "digested." The queen is upset when Bridget mentions that wicked witches should have warts, so the queen freezes Bridget and orders the three others to be taken to the dungeon. But the queen carelessly leaves the key to the youngberry tree's dome by the lock to the dome-lifting apparatus.

Hodgepodge wakes up in the dungeon and uses his "noodle" (trunk) to pull the jail's door down, thereby freeing himself and the two dolls with him. They find Bridget standing petrified, the dolls hug her, which causes Bridget to be revived. Before they flee, Bridget finds the left-behind key to the youngberry tree dome, lifts the dome off, and they pick some glowing youngberries and put them in a jar. The queen catches them, but the queen's arm is trapped under the descending dome while reaching for the key that Bridget left on the ground. The queen suddenly turns very old since she is deprived of the youth-giving berries, and appears to die. Soon Bridget steps back through the mirror into her bedroom but trips on the bottom of the mirror, spilling the berries onto her floor, and the berries quickly vanish into smoke, one by one. Her mother calls for her and Andrew to say goodbye to Grams, who is leaving for a retirement home. Andrew drops his usual grumpy, standoffish facade and hugs Grams, telling her he loves her and that he doesn't want her to go away. Their father is moved, and decides to keep Grams there after all, and everybody hugs and cries, including Aunt Ruthie, who had been the main person pressuring Grams to move out.

Andrew asks Bridget for his St. Louis Cardinals cap, Bridget starts to explain how she gave it to Huggins of Huggaland, but Andrew doesn't want to listen to what he believes are her fantasy stories, so he turns around to look for it in her bedroom. One of the dolls secretly hands the cap back through the mirror to Bridget, Bridget puts the cap on Andrew's head, Andrew is mystified, and leaves her bedroom without saying anything. Bridget cheerfully waves at the mirror.


I being of Puertorican descent, had mixed fillings about this "documentary". First I was offended that Ms. Perez compared Senor Campos to Che Guevarra. Also just a point of fact,Mr. John Leguzaimo is not of Puertorican descent.His parents came from Columbia. Whomever did research on this was not very accurate. I feel that the future of our race rests on education. This message should have been resounding throughout this film, Education is our road to freedom and power I think any future endeavors of this production team should make this their focus.In my opinion,this film swayed toward an anti-American sentiment.


I hated the way Ms. Perez portrayed Puerto Ricans! We are not all ghetto - and we do speak Spanish- not Puerto Rican! I can not speak for the uneducated persons you have run into. But our language is intact, our island is our pride. Puerto Rico is better off economically than any other Caribbean island! I'm glad we are not like Cuba, Dominican Republic or Haiti, free from American influence? Free in true poverty, not the U.S. standard of poverty. We are not victims we are resilient, humble,honest and intelligent people. Our ancestry does include strong African roots, but not "black" roots- I have nothing in common with Black Americans 9do the research).

The analogy between Pedro Albizu, Che Guevarra and Martin L. King could not be more off the mark.

MLK was a great hero a true revolutionary- an honest man who saw a day when we would all be free.

Che Guevarra helped Castro create the Cuba that is today, is that why boat fulls of Cubans risk their lives to come to America- because Che made such a better place for them? You had a great, awesome, bright idea but you politicized it too much. We have so many things to be proud of as a people - don't bring shame to our people by victimizing us. I am not a Nuyorican and perhaps that is why I can't share your views. I am Puerto Rican, I speak Spanish, I am not a victim and I have been able to accomplish many of my goals in America. If there is a part 2 in the future - less politics more history more stories of triumph- there are many.

Damaris Maldonado


I am so appalled by this documentary. I am deeply embarrassed and ashamed by the way Puertoricans were portrayed. This documentary was not about the culture of Puertoricans. It was about the culture of Nuyoricans. Puertoricans and Nuyoricans are two different cultures. Very different cultures and should not be generalized to the Puerto Rican population. Rosie, before you make a documentary, you need to do the research. You also need to check and make sure your sources are credible. Puerto Ricans are not all loud and they do have class, which is one thing the documentary lacked to show. When I saw Rosie and Jimmie on the View and Rosie on Martha Stewart I was very excited about watching. I even made sure to let my parents know since they love Puerto Rico so much. After the first five minutes I could not believe how the documentary bashed the US and made Puerto Ricans look like a bunch of guinea pigs. You need to go and visit Puerto Rico and you will see that Puerto Rico is not a 3rd world country where more than 50% of the population is in poverty. Puerto Rico has colleges and well known Universities, roads, cars, shopping centers, malls (The largest Kmart and JCPenney's I've ever seen), restaurants, theaters, beaches, hotels(Ritz, Hilton,etc.), casinos, churches, agriculture, Auto Expresso, and restaurants just to name a few. Poverty? NOT 50% of the population is. Puerto Rican culture is about family, music, food, celebrating, and trying to move forward not backward. Oh, and new cousins don't just pop up out of no where. No that is not a Puerto Rican thing, that is a ghetto thing. We are not bastards. Parents of Puertorican descent who would like to teach their children about Puerto Rico should invest in a trip with the family so they can see first hand what Puerto Rico is all about. They will see its beauty, people and culture. Please don't show them this documentary because it will only cloud their minds with negativity. Oh, and please don't tell your American friends to watch this documentary because it will only make the Puertorican people look ignorant.

Yes, I am born and raised PUERTO RICAN from the island. Just so you know!


I was excited to hear that someone had made a documentary on what it was like to be Puerto Rican. When I heard it was Rosie Perez, I wondered..could she possibly know what it is really like to be Puerto Rican. As far as I knew....she was a Nuyorican. Well anyway, I anxiously sat with my popcorn to watch. I realized 10 min into it that my initial apprehension was right. Rosie Perez has little knowledge about what it is like to be Puerto Rican. This "documentary" is more a 1st hand, very very personal account on what it is like to be a Nuyorican..and all of what that entails. She (like most of the Nuyoricans I know) have a watered down, partial and sometimes twisted sense of history. (How could they not..they live here.) Yes, all of them are proud. As they should be! But a lot don't know the ins and outs of the REAL culture, history and political background or language for the most part. It all became very very apparent with her participation in the Vieques issue. Regardless of my personal take is on this issue..at least I know what the hell the fight is for. There is she is getting arrested for something she knew little about.. and only participated in because it was a "Puerto Rican Cause" I really don't understand how she is not embarrassed to admit to it. For those of you that are not Puerto Rican, please view this as a partial account of a woman's journey of self discovery and acceptance. Do not take this as gospel...a lot of it isn't even true. Please consider the source. Rosie is an actress; not a historian. This movie is not and should never be, for other Nuyoricans, the base for their information. Instead, just a step towards finding more info, learning and debating what the reality is. Not just the one coming from this woman's eyes.


Rosie wasted a lot of TV time talking about the Tainos as if they were super influential in the dynamics of the modern day Puerto Rican. They were not. The truth is that the Africans and the Spanish were and she knows it. What kills me is that she is standing on the screen looking like some average light skin black chick ( with an obvious black daddy, cousins and auntie)pretending to truly acknowledge the real essence of what makes them the modern day Puerto Ricans,but barely mentioned how Africans influenced the way their Spanish is spoken, the food and music. She is so typical and I lost a lot of respect for her and will not support anything else she does. Also, since she wants to dance around her African-ness then she need not take more roles associated with blackness (i.e. Lackawanna Blues). We can find a prideful Black Latina next time (thank you Zoe Saldana,Gina Torres, Gina Ravera and Melissa DeSousa).

To the Puerto Rican on here that said they are African and not "black"....thank you. We "blacks" certainly do not have anything in common with "you" so there is no love lost. But, since you are probably in the States and have benefited from the Civil Rights movement we would like for you refuse any decent human treatment you received courtesy of the blood ,sweat and tears from the backs of the "blacks" you share nothing with.

If I am correct Puerto Ricans have a terrible image in the media, but we blacks do not spend our time trying to disrespect you because we know that the media loves to exploits the low points and behaviors of all minorities to maintain mindless generalizations. However, you evidently have fed into the hype that one you are somehow white or superior...you are not. Also, you somehow feel compelled to believe that black culture is BET...again you are incorrect and need to take a vacation out of the hood. Try visiting Atlanta, Ga., Houston, Texas, Charlotte, N.C. Trust me none of those blacks want to claim your "culture" either.


I am Puerto Rican and this is one of the worst documentary of I've ever seen of any type. You can see that the people on it are clueless. They don't know much about Puerto Rico and its culture. They claim to be Puerto Rican because they are from Puerto Rican descendants, but they probably know less than others who are not from there. You can see while they are talking that they are contradicting themselves. If you would like to see a real, and I mean a real, genuine documentary from Puerto Rico, then you must see "Mi Puerto Rico". That's a serious, real documentary. Not like this piece of junk. Rosie Perez based this documentary on herself. I thought it was suppose to be about Puerto Ricans. They keep repeating I didn't know. Well, that's about the only thing they got right on this so called documentary. I hate to see such a piece of garbage being done using the name of the Island. It brings down the standards.


I sat down to watch a documentary about Puerto Rico, and I ended up watching one about Nuyoricans. When I go to Puerto Rico, I fail to see the 50% that live in poverty. When I do see struggling people, they are usually Haitians, Dominicans, or Cubans that have recently arrived to the island. There is no such thing as spanglish... either you speak Spanish, or you don't.... and from what I heard... you don't. Pedro Albizo Campos IS NOT MLK to me. MLK was a great man. Campos is a great man to those that want independence which is 1%. To the rest he as loco as Osama Bin Laden. Puertoricans that want independence are a bunch of fools. If you want any proof to all of you dreamers of an independent Puerto Rico see Cuba, Haiti, Dominican Republic, Bahamas, all of South and Central America, and Mexico. Its worked wonders for them. This documentary is not about Puerto Rico, this documentary was about the Nuyoricans and their struggles.

To the person that complaint that not enough of Africa was on the show... it was suppose to be about Puerto Rico... not Africa. Denzel will make one shortly just for you.

In conclusion... to all those ignorant white people that think we need green cards to come to the US, and want to learn how the prime minister runs things, this is not a good documentary about Puertorican culture. Tell your kids to pay attention in Geography, and History class.

***Update***

Bocabonita... "doc." was about Nuyoricans. She promoted it as if its how we all feel. Should have been titled... "yo soy nuyorican... lunche...can't speak Spanish." PLEASE STOP USING PUERTO RICO, RICAN, BORICUA, OR ANYTHING ELSE ASSOCIATED WITH PR WITH THIS NUYORICAN HISTORICAL LESSON. God forbid they play this on the island.


Yes, this was pure unbelievable condescending babble. We know that the French often have a skewed idea of the USA, it's puritanism and views towards sex. As an American (Hoosier) who lives in France, I have ample opportunity to observe these attitudes. And while some of these preconceived notions may be true, NOT ONE ELEMENT of the midwestern town portrayed in this film rang real. A man who has never had sex because he was told in high school 20 years prior that his penis is too big? Where in the world would you find that? A juke box in a bar that plays only vintage bluegrass? A town with maybe 16 people less than two hours away from Chicago, but with no major gas station, no Tvs in the home, no McDonalds, no kids... A population that knows each other's intimate details yet relentlessly gets together like one big family that hates each other. The adult males plant whoopee cushions at the local cafe, have farms but don't harvest, kill the guy they don't like in front of everyone and seem to get away with it, and all with equal emotion? The liberated French girl who will screw the 17 year old virgin boy because of her sexual generosity, the too much flesh guy who goes from getting off in cornfields by the mere breath of an Illinois breeze to helping deflower this same 17 year old farm boy? HELP! I am so baffled and astounded by the absurdity of this film that I am not expressing clearly how ridiculous it is. Go see it for the A-to-Z primer on what to avoid. Gosh, I hope I didn't ruin it for you!


Kind of drawn in by the erotic scenes, only to realize this was one of the most amateurish and unbelievable bits of film I've ever seen. Sort of like a high school film project. What was Rosanna Arquette thinking?? And what was with all those stock characters in that bizarre supposed Midwest town? Pretty hard to get involved with this one. No lessons to be learned from it, no brilliant insights, just stilted and quite ridiculous (but lots of skin, if that intrigues you) videotaped nonsense....What was with the bisexual relationship, out of nowhere, after all the heterosexual encounters. And what was with that absurd dance, with everybody playing their stereotyped roles? Give this one a pass, it's like a million other miles of bad, wasted film, money that could have been spent on starving children or Aids in Africa.....


Jean-Marc Barr (Being Light, The big blue, Dogville) has directed and interpreted this strange movie which is the second installment of some kind of trilogy. I might be wrong but I don't think this movie's part of the Dogma '95 manifesto, though it really looks like it. I'm not really sure of what I think about this film. All actors are good. They deliver pretty good performances, especially Rosanna Arquette and Jean-Marc Barr. The story is somehow interesting. But I don't know, there's something about the movie that I don't like. The sex scenes are way too long. It goes from an interesting work of art to an erotic piece of crap I don't know exactly where it stands. Sure it's not a bad movie, but I won't suggest people to see it neither I'll tell them not to watch. Just do as you want. If you feel curious and you're open-minded, give it a try, you might like it.


The TV productions at the 2000's start were between weak and bad. Before marks like (Alias, Lost, Prison Break, Desperate Housewives, or Monk) the TV didn't have the right hit yet, which could capture the attention and the interests of the 2000s' viewer. Titles like (Relic Hunter), (Mutant X), (The Lost World), (Sheena), or even (Baywatch Hawaii) weren't encouraging for you to watch and follow, or at least weren't that captivating and interesting all the time as what preceded them. (Special Unit 2) was no exception. In fact it's Men in Black meets The X Files' spoof ! (As if these were the special unit 1). But even according to this brilliant formula; it didn't work well. It was promising; at the time there was some saturation out of the "supernatural" cases after a decade of many X files already, so the natural spirit to lampoon it naughtily too (imagine Mulder as womanizer !). However (Special Unit 2) wasn't the strongest in this, or a strong when it comes to make a comic Sci-Fi show. It was highly ridiculous, where for instance every sexy situation must turn into ugly disgusting one. It enjoyed that bad taste sickeningly. (Michael Landes) was non-charismatic and mostly unbearable as a comedian. His chemistry with (Alexondra Lee), as well as any supposed sexual attention, was all languid. Sure the show got a funny look but overall it was unfunny work. It's clear that there was nothing more interesting than its main idea. Among (Evan Katz)'s other works as a co-writer and a co-producer like (Seven Days) before or (24) later this must be a low point !. Despite the distinctive personality, it managed to be a silly jest for most of the time. Therefore if that was there goal, so they made one of the silliest indeed ! And truly, it would be one of the rarest times to be thankful for the cancellation of a show after 19 episodes of it only !


This show had pretty good stories, but bad dialog. The main character was especially annoying. It's quite obvious why this show was canceled, although, like most UPN shows, I never knew it even existed until it was in syndicated re-runs.

Most of it's plots seemed to be copied from other shows and movies, leading me to think the producers didn't have an original idea in their heads.

I haven't commented enough. You've got to have at least ten lines of text. The special effect were not bad for a 2001 show.

The gnome was a nice character.


A great concept gone wrong. Poor acting, even worse writing....After watching the first two episodes I was wondering why it ever made it to season two. The characters are forgettable, the writing is poor, the sets are just OK. The special effects are simply sad - so much better has been made in the same time-frame - where is the money going on this one? The first episode starts out interesting then goes downhill fast - the precept of the whole show is just silly. Now don't get me wrong, I am a huge Sci-Fi fan and 'geek' - but this show simply doesn't cut it. As I said in the beginning, I am truly surprised it made it to season two - so much better has been canceled after only one season (Jake 2.0 for example). This show was just bad.


A well-intentioned movie about Sonja Horowitz (Renée Zellweger), the wife of devout Talmudic scholar Mendel (Glenn Fitzgerald). who is deeply unhappy. Mendel's brother Sender (Christopher Eccleston) sees this and hires her to work in the field in which she's already an expertjewelry. He also starts an affair with her, and then when she spends time with a Puerto Rican artist, he dumps her and betrays her to the family, which shuts her out. There's a subplot in which Sonja's dead brother talks to her, and apparently takes the form of a magical beggar woman, but why is not clear. Much is not clear, unfortunately, including what is going on with Sonja, why she tells the Rebbe there's a fire inside her and maybe it's not from god, and what this means, and what the magical beggar woman tells her means. To an extent the story touches on the plight of women in the ultra-orthodox community, and yet Sonja is not exactly liberated. Nor is the notion of being redeemed by the love of a man of another race very well-thought-out. The title comes from the biblical definition of the worth of a good womanand yet it's the bastard Sender who quotes it to Sonja. Zellweger struggles with the part; she's supposed to be a Jew from the mid-west and sometimes her accent is flat, and at other times it's taken on the characteristic sounds of Brooklyn. She's at her best when she's being tough and taking charge, but ultimately the movie's a mess.


The movie is steeped in religion, so it is impossible to separate it from religion in commenting upon it. In my opinion, this movie pretends to explore deep issues, but thrives on stereotypes and prejudices; with little true insight. What the people in the movie (and therefore, the writer) failed to see was grace. They failed to understand that God is the author of beauty and He is the Creator of passion and sexual gratification in the proper context of marriage bonds. To imply that the people of the society in which the story is based believe that nudity is sinful, and both the man & the woman enjoying the act of marriage is dirty, is just an oversimplification. Such stereotypes really don't exist, for even Jewish holy writings speak clearly of the caring husband who will seek his wife's pleasure before his own. Scripture says that a man ought to love his wife as his own flesh, and that no man ever hated his own flesh, but he nourishes and cherishes it. Even if you want to ignore the New Testament, the writers & characters completely ignore that there are passages such as the Song of Solomon in the Old Testament, and the even the book of Proverbs which says, "Rejoice in the wife of thy youth, let her breasts satisfy you always"! How can that be read in any way other way than that God knows, and approves of, and smiles on, the marital union and the enjoyment thereof? Real men don't ignore the value and needs of their wives. Those that do deny a very basic teaching of the Judeo/Christian religion. God NEVER said those things. It's absurd. Sonia rebelled because of the misapplication of the teachings of the true God of Abraham. It didn't need to be so. How sad. What Sonia desperately needed was TRUTH, not tradition. In knowing, loving and obeying God, we love others more; before ourselves. That is the faith of the God of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob & Joseph; once for all delivered to the Saints; bought & paid for by Jesus Christ, the Righteous. But alright, ignore all this and abandon ancient, holy Scripture and turn to the wisdom of homeless people & ghosts. That's a good plan. I would never recommend this movie; partly because the sexual content is unnecessarily graphic, but also because it really doesn't offer any valuable insight. Check out "Yentl" if you want to see a much more useful treatment of Jewish tradition at odds with society.


OK, admittedly as an Orthodox woman who LIVES in Boro Park, I'm going to be a little biased against this film. However, it seemed that Boaz Yakin's sole purpose in making this film was Orthodox-bashing. With our wigs, modest attire, and separate seating, we're a pretty easy target already. Yakin never made it past the surface. The result is a film with more holes than Swiss cheese: 1. Yosi tells Sonia off for loving him more than G-d or their parents. Then he deliberately defies his father's order that he not go swimming because of his poor health. 2. Sonia flips out at her son's bris. Why would a Hasidic woman from Monsey have such a strong reaction? It's hard to believe that she never attended one before. Let's face it, even Reform Jews hold bris milah ceremonies nowadays. 3. Was Mendel sleeping during his chosson classes? He's supposed to satisfy his wife's passions in bed and refrain from kissing her in the street. Especially in the middle of the busiest street in Boro Park! 4. Sonia and Mendel had to have been married for over a year, and he just now noticed that they were not meant for each other? A little clue--arranged marriage does not mean that the girl has to take the first guy her parents set her up with. Nor will she be shunned by the community if the marriage doesn't work out. 5. If Sonia really wanted to get into the jewelry business that badly, she did not have to go through her lecherous brother-in-law. There are Orthodox female doctors, lawyers, teachers, etc. Sonia came off as more whiny than sympathetic. Instead of taking control of her life, she sat back and waited for things to happen, and then complained that she didn't like the outcome. That's not standing up to one's environment; that's pandering to stereotype. Frankly, I think she got what she deserved.


We can start with the wooden acting but this film is a disaster. Having grown up in NY I can tell you that this film is an insult to anyone who is familiar with the community or the people. I'm not even a defender of the culture in any way and found this to be a Hollywoodized piece of trash to fit its own fictional, ridiculous culture presentation and language that anyone who watches Seinfeld knows is inaccurate. This is a colossal waste of time and, even worse, is not exactly interesting since the outcome is obvious and the scenes of confrontation are laughably bad. Who acts this way? Nobody.

The writer's name sounds Israeli or something of that nature but it is clear he doesn't have a clue about the subject he is writing about. Looking at his bio, it is shocking he lived in New York and wonder how much real connection he had with the community. Even mediocre films like "A Stranger Among Us" are better and more closer to the truth than this dreck. Reading this guy's credits it's no wonder he has written scripts on all C grade films that somehow feature stars. shocking. Perhaps he knows someone because this script is even below par for a bad Dolph Lundgren film.


This film has so little class in comparison to Strangers on a Train or even, Accidental Meeting for that matter, that despite plot similarities I wouldn't feel right in actually comparing this to either of them. The Yancy Butler character came across as such a dopey dimwit I was too embarrassed for the writer and director to continue watching.

I don't enjoy many Lifetime movies but feel compelled to watch one every now and then in the interest of promoting harmony at home. I often groan silently but this film caused me to protest out loud, stand up leave the room and walk around the house mumbling to myself, before I returned to my normally favorite chair to subject myself to more torture.

Dean Morgan, Rochester, NY


This movie was so bad it was laughable. I couldn't resist watching it though. The plot is standard, the acting quite horrible (supporting cast such as the nutty neighbor and the lawyer friend were better actors). Kind of amusing if you have some time to waste and like seeing the conclusion to a dramatic plot.

The headliner who plays "Kathy" was just fascinating because I couldn't decide if her deadpan, flat affect was the result of bad surgery or simply bad acting (I decided it was both). This leaves the script to comment on, which was pretty awful. Pat remarks, idiotic decisions, and reckless stupidity on the part of every character in the movie. Maybe this is what was so riveting; I don't know. I just watched it to see how bad it could be. (Actually the dialog doesn't even qualify to be called "cliche'" - but it's almost completely inane.)

All in all, very bad, cheaply made movie. The sets, the same scenes (a house, a building) were shown over and over with no artistry or actual tie-in to the action; more like props that were randomly dropped into the action in a bad play. A chase scene could have been shot by any juvenile in a warehouse or an old school: poorly shot, cheap props, minimal action.... and I still wanted to see the ending. Go figure.


There is a bit of a spoiler below, which could ruin the surprise of the ONE unexpected and truly funny scene in this film. There is also information about the first film in this series.

I caught this film on DVD, which someone gave as a gift to my roommate. It came as a set together with the first film in the "Blind Dead" series.

This movie was certainly much worse than the first, "La Noche del Terror Ciego". In addition, many of the features of the first movie were changed significantly. To boot, the movie was dubbed in English (the first was subtitled), which I tend to find distracting.

The concept behind the series is that in the distant past a local branch of the Knights Templar was involved in heinous and secret rituals. Upon discovery of these crimes, the local peasantry put the Templars to death in such a manner that their eyes can no longer be used, thus preventing them from returning from Hell to exact their revenge. We then jump to modern times where because of some event, the Templars arise from the dead to exact their revenge upon the villagers whose ancestors messed them up in the first place. Of course, since the undead knights have no eyes, they can only find their victims when they make some sort of noise.

The Templars were a secretive order, from about the 12th century, coming out of the Crusades. They were only around for about 150 years, before they were suppressed in the early 1300s by the Pope and others. Because they were secretive, there were always rumors about their ceremonies, particularly for initiation. Also, because of the way the society was organized, you didn't necessarily have church officials overseeing things, which meant they didn't have an inside man when things heated up. And, because of the nature of their trials, they were tortured into confessions. The order was strongest in France, but did exist in Portugal and Spain, where the movies take place.

Where the first movie had a virgin sacrifice and knights drinking the blood directly from the body of the virgin (breast shots here, of course, this is a horror film after all), and then, once the knights come back to life, they attack their victims by eating them alive and sucking their blood; in this sequel, this all disappears. You still have the same scene (redone, not the same footage) of them sacrificing the virgin, but they drain the blood into a bowl and drink it from that. Thus, when they come back, they just hack people up with their swords or claw people to death, which I have to say is a much less effective means of disturbing your audience. There's also a time problem: in the first film the dating is much closer to the Templars, where here they are now saying it is the 500 anniversary of the peasants burning these guys at the stake, which would date it around 1473. And the way that the Templars lose their eyes is much less interesting as well. In the first, they have them pecked out by crows. Now they are simply burned out, and in quite a ridiculous manner.

Oh yeah, and maybe it was just me, but there seemed to be a lot of people from the first movie reappearing in this film (despite having died). Not really a problem, since the movie is completely different and not a sequel in the sense of a continuation, but odd none-the-less.

The highlight of this movie is the rich fellow who uses a child to distract the undead while he makes a break for the jeep. The child's father had already been suckered by this rich man into making an attempt to get the jeep, so he walks out and tells her to find her father. It comes somewhat out of the blue, and is easily the funniest scene in the film. Of course, why the child doesn't die at this point is beyond me, and disappointed for horror fans.

I couldn't possibly recommend this film to anyone. It isn't so bad that it becomes funny, so it just ends up being a mediocre horror film. The bulk of the film has several people holed up in a church, each making various attempts to go it alone in order to escape the blind dead who have them surrounded. When the film ends, you are not surprised at the outcome at all; in fact, quite disappointed. If you are into the novelty of seeing a Spanish horror film, see the first movie, which at least has some innovative ideas and not so expected outcomes.


oh my god, i give this film three stars out of ten for the following reasons. the final sequence is once again quite effectively handled and it was absolutely hilarious. that is what it gets those three points for. other than that, it was atrocious. it wasnt meant to be this funny, that much is obvious, but the dubbing, the acting of the dubbed voices, the dialogue they said, where often hilarious. the actions performed, and/or not performed also lead to much hilarity and/or throwing things at the screen. such as when the whole town is being slaughtered and one small group of people stand on a balcony looking on as if they were watching a cooking glass, or the "attempted" escapes from the church in which they hole up.

evil mayor: i think something is going on outside so you should go upstairs and look out the window.

hero: ok.

evil mayor: now is my chance to make some idiot go outside and flail around with fire being totally ineffective and getting hacked up.

insert sequence in which this occurs.

evil mayor: damn, wait, i will get this small child and she will walk outside and cry pappa seemingly obvlious to the fact that those rotten corpses are not just spooky strangers but are actually zombies with no flesh or skin or anything and she will lead them away and i will flee! insert sequence in which this occurs.

hero (upstairs): he is trying to escape again, fool, and he has left the door open, he is silly, this is a nice view.

woman: where is my daughter?

hero (downstairs now): i dont know, i cannot see her anyway and she was not outside because i could not see her despite her being out there and me having a view of the entire neighbourhood and she is standing right outside, where on earth could she be?

needless to say, anybody would be throwing things at the screen after 10 minutes of this. so, watch the first film with a couple of friends, having a few drinks, and make sure by the time you get to watching this one, you are absolutely blindly drunk and can just giggle at the stupidity of it all. and there wasnt even any decent gore, such a shame.


This superior inferiority to the original dumb "Blind Dead" movie is another trash bin waste. So many people have hyped up these films that I can't believe what they say about it. Since I was a kid I have heard about how scary and great these films are and I saw them all and was throughly disappointed, was everyone on drugs, from the 1970's or do they just not know how boring this crude is?


My first exposure to the Templarios & not a good one. I was excited to find this title among the offerings from Anchor Bay Video, which has brought us other cult classics such as "Spider Baby". The print quality is excellent, but this alone can't hide the fact that the film is deadly dull. There's a thrilling opening sequence in which the villagers exact a terrible revenge on the Templars (& set the whole thing in motion), but everything else in the movie is slow, ponderous &, ultimately, unfulfilling. Adding insult to injury: the movie was dubbed, not subtitled, as promised on the video jacket.


beyond the fact crazy people exist and there are religious nuts out there.

The characters basically make no sense most of the time.

The film has no real beginning, middle or ending, nor is anything ever explained much.

The film opens with a young man, with the unlikely name of Hazel Motes, apparently returning from a stint in the army.

He hitches a ride to a two story house that is in extreme disrepair, windows boarded over. He goes in the house, walks around and finally writes a note that he leaves there. This scene comes to nothing, and we learn nothing further about the house or its history.

It is never explained exactly whose house this is, or where the people have gone, but we are given the impression Hazel has probably lived there at one time.

Hazel decides to go to a city. Why - we don't know. Once he arrives in this city he writes down a name & address that he sees on a bathroom wall, and goes to visit this woman, who is a surprisingly fat hooker. He sees her for awhile and then he apparently isn't seeing her anymore. Like everything else in this movie, it comes to nothing and serves no purpose.

A young man named Enoch, tries to befriend him, but Hazel really isn't interested, although they keep crossing paths.

Enoch is about as crazy as you can get. One of his habits is to go to the zoo and stand in front of the cage where the chimps are and talk at them insultingly.

We never really know why Enoch behaves as he does, or why Hazel behaves as he does, beyond the fact Hazel had an overdose of old time scary, fundamentalist religion via his grandfather.

Enoch later becomes enthralled with a man who dresses in a gorilla suit, and manages to get the gorilla suit from him and then runs around in it.

Hazel, who is wound rather tight and seems to be in a constant borderline rage does a bit of street preaching. I got the impression he was trying to free himself from the untruths of the religion that had been drilled into him.

He has several encounters with a preacher and his daughter, although their interactions never really make any particular point, and there is no plot line.

Eventually Hazel succumbs to complete religious fervor and begins self-harming.

It is a very odd film. Interesting in it's oddness but other than that it has absolutely nothing going for it.

The cast does an outstanding job,but this film completely fails to deliver either a point of view or a storyline.

The film also has the characters tossing around the N word from time to time with no connection to the rest of the dialog.

2 stars


I realize that bringing a novel to the big screen is always problematic. That is the only positive thing I can say about this truly horrid adaptation.

Have you read 'Wise Blood?' It's an amazing book. Flannery O'Connor wrote about the south as no one else has. She was a southerner herself, a devout catholic, and a remarkably gifted writer. In her first novel she wove together a dark and deeply disturbing tale of faith, doubt, and redemption with a macabre sense of humor and surprising evenhandedness. The characters in the book may seem outrageous to those who have not lived in the rural south, but I can assure you that such people do exist. Not only do they exist, they are human beings with families, feelings, and concerns like anyone else. Flannery's intentions were so often misunderstood - she was not lampooning these backwoods zealots - she saw in them the beautiful operation of what she would have called 'grace'...even in the most violent, distressing, and maddening of circumstances. To read 'Wise Blood' is to be washed over with a sense of dread and impending doom. Finally, it is to think long and hard about our judgments and preconceptions - our entire world view.

None of this comes through in John Huston's 'Gilligan's Island'-like adaptation. None. It is a farce. A bad farce. The entire film is saturated with a hauteur that turns the stomach. The acting is poor, the southern accents are fake and insulting. The filmmakers show no insight into the thinking of religious southerners. Ms. O'Connor's intense prose are reduced to sight gags and cheap, amateur theatre. The soundtrack is a mixture of hayseed silliness and 'Clockwork Orange'-style cheeseball electronics that doesn't fit the story or even the MOVIE. I was granted free admission to this movie and almost walked out. Truly, truly terrible.

As an aside, I do not agree with Ms. O'Connor's religious views, and while I was raised in the deep south, years ago I made my way north and have not looked back. But the south is a beautiful place full of fascinating individuals (like every other place on earth), and the cartoonish mockery with which southerners and their attitudes are dealt in this movie borders on offensive. If you're into being offended (which I am not), then this movie most DEFINITELY crosses the line.

I don't like to talk crap about an artist's work - John Huston was a man that I did not know, and I'm sure he was a sincere and gifted filmmaker, to which his respected place in film history attests. My views are clearly skewed by having read (and loved) Flannery O'Connor's work. So I don't claim to be coming from any other perspective. Maybe as a stand-alone film it works for cinephiles. But for Flannery O'Connor fans - and, I might add, for self-respecting southerners and openminded individuals of all stripes - this movie is a waste of time.


John Huston's Wise Blood was a more horrifying misrepresentation of Flannery O'Connor's book than I could have imagined. From the utterly terrible acting performances (and don't you, "Oh that was done on purpose, you just don't get it" me!) to the musical score that was more suited to an episode of Rockford Files, this film was revolting. I viewed it with no ill-will at the outset, and, in fact, expected a pleasant experience. But the misrepresentation of the southern characters, from the ridiculously fraudulent southern drawl to the lilting, comedic way their faith was portrayed, was inexcusable. Right down to it's end, which was completely devoid of any character sentiment, it failed in every place that O'Connor's book shined and resonated. The actors portraying the "southern" policemen may as well have been eating smothered hot-dogs from NYC street stands and quoting Godfather. The one redeeming acting performance was Ned Beatty's lively and dead-on representation of Hoover Shoates, a religious con-artist who hears Moates preaching the Church of Christ Without Christ and sees dollar signs and business opportunities. O'Connor's powerful book is most well-known for it's creepy, religious undercurrent that jibes the seemingly lifeless cadaver of "Faith". Mr. Huston's film is a shameful mockery of the author's intentions, as they are understood by me and most of her fans, if I may be so bold as to say so. While I acknowledge that I can't know exactly what the author wished to convey, I have enough affection for her and her works to desire to remain a fan. If I viewed Wise Blood the way Mr. Huston apparently did, I would have thrown it in the trash. For Flannery's sake, and mine, I forgive you, John Huston. The forgetting....that will take some time.


This "screwy comedy" seems very forced. Indeed, the actors TRY very hard to make a go of an essentially unfunny script. And, as a result it doesn't really go anywhere. The idea of a woman finding out she was pregnant after getting a quickie divorce just isn't all that funny. And then, when Cooper sneaks off with the baby because he doesn't want it put up for adoption just seems terribly unfunny and it's really pushing hard to turn this into a comedy. It's really a shame, too, as the actors were more capable than the script and I found myself just bored by the whole mess. Considering that Cooper made so many GOOD comedies, I recommend you see them instead.


This movie starts out promisingly, with an early scene in which Frank Morgan advises against Gary Cooper's marriage to his daughter, Anita Louise. Frank Morgan, playing an unabashed gold-digger, loudly complains to Cooper about his perceived penury at the hands of his family - including his daughter, Anita Louise. I am a fan of all 3 actors. Frank Morgan is (to my mind) a Hollywood treasure, Cooper a legend, and Louise a very lovely, versatile and under-appreciated actress seldom seen in the leading role. I also have nothing against Teresa Wright, and while not blessed with great range, she usually delivers heart-warming performances.

From a promising opening, the story slides downhill all the way to the end. I found nothing humorous about burning down the home of Cooper's would-be in-laws. The butler in such a fastidious, non-smoking household would never just blithely walk away, allowing Cooper to continue smoking, or alternatively he would certainly supply him with some means of disposing of his ill-timed cigarette. Moreover, nobody with any common sense would permit himself to be left holding a lit cigarette without asking for some means of disposing of it. And finally, nobody in his right mind crushes out a cigarette in a handkerchief and sticks it in his pocket! This whole sequence just made Cooper seem foolish and gauche. It is a poor contrivance - ill conceived and filmed in a way that induces ridicule not laughter.

The forced medical examination of Cooper is equally contrived. Nobody lets himself undergo a complete medical examination without his being advised of its purpose or giving his consent! That Cooper did so is too removed from reality to be funny - it's absurd! Stealing babies from hospitals is a serious legal offense, and that, too, is nothing to laugh about. Finally, the scenes of Cooper's overly fastidious, neurotic attention to his baby's feeding and weight may have struck a nerve with a few people who have experienced anxiety over their own newborn babies. But to me they just seem tedious and slow. The wardrobe and prop departments went over the top in those scenes, while paradoxically, the script writer went to sleep.

The lines are just not in the script to generate humor. They just miss on all cylinders. The laughs come not a mile-a-minute, but more like a light year-a-minute. The only time the movie has any energy or humor is when Frank Morgan is on camera.

The scene that is totally wasted is when both of Cooper's love interests and their respective fathers are cooped up in the same hotel room together. There is probably a rich vein of humor somewhere in that mine, but none of it was extracted.

In the end, one of the two very likable girls is going to get hurt. Predictably, it is the Anita Louise character, who gets jilted on her would-be-wedding night! While it is not on camera, that is her fate, and it is not particularly funny - even as a loose end. She hadn't done anything in this film to make me unsympathetic (unlike Gail Patrick, say, in My Favorite Wife). Consequently, I was expecting (perhaps "hoping" is a better word in the context of the film!) for Anita Louise to enjoy a happy ending, too. The fact that such a nice character is essentially wiped out at the movie's end really undermines the effect of the "happy ending" for Cooper and Wright.

I kept waiting for something to happen, for the witty dialog so characteristic of movies of the era... And it never delivered. A good performance by Frank Morgan in a slightly different role is totally wasted here.