Curiously, Season 6 of the Columbo series contained only three episodes and there is very little evidence of quality in at least two of the scripts, based on this outing for the "man-in-the-mac" and also "Fade into Murder".

Furthermore, it is not a coincidence that Peter S. Feibleman penned both the aforementioned scripts (incidentally he plays the part of the murdered security guard here).

This adventure is very rarely compelling and many of the performers just look disinterested with the material. The story is rather weakly developed with some protracted periods of boring conversation.

Columbo is also shadowed by a colleague here(similar to "Last Salute to the Commodore") but the entertainment value is minimal. To add to this, Celeste's Holm characterisation, which is intended to provide comedy, induces embarrassment rather than laughs.

The script wavers off to deal with the family history and the murderess does enough to gift Columbo the case, though there is never a credible discussion relating to the motives of her crime.

Ironically, what turns out to be, arguably, Columbo's worst adventure produces the funniest moment in the series. He quizzes a male hairdresser and has a haircut/manicure at the same time. The next 5 minutes are hilarious - it's just that Columbo's hair is so perfectly groomed, then he can't afford to pay the bill and then, when he makes enquiries at a jewellers he keeps glancing in the mirror to admire his hairstyle!

Sadly, this is the only decent moment from a script that looks like it has been cobbled together in ten minutes.

For Columbo completionists only.


This was a very brief episode that appeared in one of the "Night Gallery" show back in 1971. The episode starred Sue Lyon (of Lolita movie fame) and Joseph Campanella who play a baby sitter and a vampire, respectively. The vampire hires a baby sitter to watch his child (which appears to be some kind of werewolf or monster) while he goes out at night for blood. The baby sitter is totally oblivious to the vampire's appearance when she first sees him and only starts to put two and two together when she notices that he has no reflection in the mirror, has an odd collection of books in the library on the occult, and hears strange noises while the vampire goes to talk to the child. She realizes that the man who hired her may not be what she thought he was originally. She bolts out the door, the vampire comes out looking puzzled and the episode is over. I don't know what purpose it was to make such an abbreviated episode that lasted just 5 minutes. They should just have expanded the earlier episode by those same 5 minutes and skipped this one. A total wasted effort.


This movie is a pathetic attempt, apparently, to justify the actions of Mary Ann Letourneau. In order to do this, they cast a 19-year-old -well, probably not "in order to do this." There was no way they could have cast a 12 or 13 year old as the boy because the love scenes would have grossed everyone out (if they had even been allowed to do them) - as they should. Mary Ann's boyfriend was my nephew's age, making her a pedophile. Sixth grade, people. The definition of pedophile doesn't have to include many children - all you need is one.

I really don't care about her upbringing or her unhappy marriage. She had a responsibility to her students that she did not live up to. The reason given is that she is bipolar, rejected the diagnosis, and refused to take her medication. It's understandable, then, that she was not thinking rationally. One hopes that she now understands her actions.

Now that she and Vili are married and have two children together, I pray that she is on her medication and thinking clearly.

All that aside, Penelope Ann Miller was totally convincing and perfect casting for the role.


An actor asks, "What's my motivation?," to understand his or her character. After viewing this this "docudrama," this vague and haphazard farce, a viewer wonders what anyone's motivation was.

This inept offspring of daytime T.V. (the Oprah show) missed by a mile a great opportunity to explore weighty issues.

Its characters were all shallow and superficial, its story line far less socially redeeming than a "Simpsons" episode. It gratuitously portrayed investigating police as unprofessional and incompetent. It failed to offer why the court might treat the main character, a female child molester, so differently than it would have a male perp.

Why did this unrepentant woman begin "grooming" her second grade student, beginning an affair with him when he returned to her sixth grade class? Why did the boy's mother testify in her behalf? The simple answer is overwhelming narcissism, plus generational rationalization and greed. The movie gave no hint of that.

Why wasn't the viewer informed that the victim's mother sold interview rights to print and television tabloids, parading her adolescent son on "The Today Show"? That Mary Kay's lawyer cashed in, she herself appealing a "Son of Sam" statute so she could benefit from her crime by selling her story to the highest bidder?

Why wasn't it explained that LeTourneau's father was a former right wing Republican congressman, the 1972 American Independent Presidential candidate, the John Birch Society President? In 1983 John Schmitz's political career ended when he was found to have had children by his own community college student, exposed only when that mistress sexually mutilated their infant son? Yet Letourneau's dad had removed his many kids from "too liberal" Catholic schools, fighting to keep all schoolchildren from receiving any sex education?

A month after her conditional release, again pregnant with the now 14-year-old's second daughter, Mary Kay received 7 1/2 years in prison for numerous probation violations. A prophetic editorial regarding the sad affair then appeared in the Seattle Times: "At the end of two wretched hours, LeTourneau was led off to jail, and this salacious melange of made-for-TV seaminess was over, until casting begins."

Sure enough, 18 months later, filming of this travesty was underway.


This is just one more of those hideous films that you find on Lifetime TV which portray the abhorrent behavior of some disgusting woman in an empathetic manner. Along with other such nasty films as "The Burning Bed," "Enough," or "Monster," this film takes a disgusting criminal and attempts to show the viewer why she's not such a bad person after all. Give us a break! Here's my question to the filmmakers: If LeTourneau were a man, and Vili were a 12 year old girl, would you have made a picture sympathizing and empathizing with this person? Answer: Hell no.

Imagine switching the genders in this film, and then you'll see just why myself and others here consider this a worthless piece of garbage. Were the genders switched, there would be no attempt to empathize with the criminal. Instead, we'd likely be treated to a portrayal of a monstrous and hideous man preying upon a young girl, his lascivious behavior landing him in prison, and his brainwashed victim suffering from Stockholm Syndrome. The only reason LeTourneau does not receive the same treatment in this film is by virtue of her sex.

Let's call a spade a spade. LeTourneau is a pedophile. Plain and simple. No ifs, ands or buts. She's a criminal who belongs in prison, and deserves our derision and contempt, but certainly not our pity or empathy.


Saw this piece of work at a film fest in CA. My god, what was the director thinking? Film professors should use this film as a case study on what NOT to do when making a short film. First off, this project makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. The film takes place partially in "The Waystation", some stupid vapid bar in the middle of nowhere, where nothing really takes place.

THe acting is beyond bad. So bad in fact that I almost thought it was a comedy. The lead actress Julia Reading is a step below the acting in most amateur porn films. There is one or two decent performances, including the guys who played Jacob and Fenner but it's like the director had no clue on how to work or use his thespians. The only thing worse than the acting was the dialogue, which bordered on absurd. The writer (whom I assume is also the director) writes each character like they are auditioning for a comic book villain.

The overall production value is pretty good, but to be honest, with a film this bad it's easy to overlook it. The production design is pretty good, although the Waystation looks like any ordinary bar. The costumes and make-up are okay, and I understand the production was working with a low budget. It's just when the characters speak, or they try and push the plot forward, the film unravels into a muck of crap.

As I've said, this film is god awful. It's like the director/writer watched a lot of sci-fi films and threw all the parts he liked into a blender and came up with this. My only hope is that he used other people's money on this, because if he used his own, he's a total sucker.


Wow, this film was just bloody horrid. SO bad in fact that even though I didn't pay to see it, I still wanted my money back.

The film is about nothing intelligible. It's a mish-mash of sci-fi cliche's that were done better by much more skilled film makers. The performances, especially by the leads were over the top in a less endearing Ed Wood sort of way. Speaking of Ed Wood, he'd be proud of the character's dialogue. It's just too taciturn with no hint of irony or sense of humor. On top of that, it doesn't make sense, nor does the plot, or lackthereof.

The visual effects are okay, but not enough to go "oh wow, that's cool" and they just seem to be thrown in to "be cool" rather than be a good plot device.

The soundtrack was another mishmash of stuff that really never set any sort of mood. Again, it seemed as if the director was just throwing in songs in the film in an effort to "be cool".

Which brings me to my final point. Perhaps if the director actually worried more about plot, story and dialogue instead of trying to "be cool", he wouldn't have made such a dorky cliche' of a short film.


OK I caught this film halfway through, but.oh.dear.god.it.sounds.like.they're.all.reading.from.scripts.

Especially that guy who is now in Teachers and the Book Group, although at least he has proved that he can act if he wants to! (the part where someone has a heart attack stands out as a bastion of bad film making both in terms of acting, scripting and general plausibility) It quite clearly appears to be a cash-in on Human Traffic, but whilst that is not the best film ever, it is at least original and had actors whose delivery did not resemble that of earnest-yet-hopeless GCSE students trying to get a pass grade. Not so much as Human Traffic as a bit of a car crash!


As far as films go, this is likable enough. Entertaining characters, good dialogue, interesting enough story. I would have really quite liked it had I not been irritated immensely whilst watching at the utter disrespect it shows the city it is set in.

Glasgow. In Scotland. Yet every character is English (save for Sean's girlfriend, who is Dutch). Scottish accents are heard only fleetingly in menial jobs & roles. As a Scottish woman (& as a viewer who likes her "real life" films to be a bit more like real life) I really don't think it would have hurt to use any one of the countless talented Scottish actors...or at least got English ones who could toss together a decent accent! The futile attempt at using the word "wee" a few times did nothing but to further the insult.


Filmfour are going to have to do a lot better than this little snot of a film if they're going to get the right sort of reputation for themselves.

This film is set in Glasgow (although only a couple of secondary characters have anything approaching a Scottish accent). The premise, about people who's lives are going nowhere, who all meet up in the same cafe in the early hours of the morning as they have night jobs, COULD have made for a really funny, insightful, quirky, cultish film. Instead we have a group of self-obsessed saddos and a plot which has been so done to bits I'm suprised it hasn't been banned. X and Y are friends. X is sleeping with Z. Y sleeps with Z as well. Oh you figure it out.

A total waste of time. Painful dialogue - it sounded like something that a group of 16 year olds would have written for a GCSE drama project. The female character was completely superfluous - just written in as a token female in the hope that women would be cajoled into seeing it.

If you're the sort of thicko lad who laughs at beer adverts and can usually be found wandering round in packs shouting on Saturday nights in nondescript town centres then you will love this film and find it "a right laff". Everyone else, run, don't walk away from this sorry little misfit.

And one question, when the group left the "boring" seaside town (Saltcoats incidentally although they changed the name on the film), to go back to Glasgow, WHY did they do it via the Forton motorway services at LANCASTER which is in England?


Such a pretentious and lame attempt to hipness. Diabolical script and dialogue and truly embarrassing acting. Really the worse movie I have ever seen(at the cinema). Nothing in my opinion saves this movie from being a total disaster. I saw it when it came out in a cinema in Brighton. People were walking out and there were more people chatting outside the toilets than in the auditorium! At the end there were boos and scorn from the meagre crowd left, which was quite sad as relatives of one of the main actors were present and looked really sheepish. However the movie was that bad that I really could not feel like that sympathetic with them. Everybody has to start from somewhere and their son started off his acting career with this truly awful attempt at 'Tarantinism made in the UK'. 5 years have gone bye, but sometimes I still cringe at the memory of that sad night at the movies! This is a movie with no redeeming features whatsoever! I gave it a 1 as 0 was not available. They should invent a 'shameometer' for everybody involved in this sorry mess of a movie. I know some of them have moved on to better things, the positive thing is that none of them could have sank any lower than this.


The idea is to have something interesting happening in the first ten minutes to keep the audience hooked. Late Night Shopping manages to avoid interest for much longer than that. When we do get to a point, it is so monumentally moronic that I kept thinking I must have misunderstood it. But I didn't.

Sean tells the story of an Osaka landlord who rented the same apartment to two people at the same time who worked different shifts and so didn't realise they were sharing. His friend asks "But what about the weekends?" Sean doesn't have an adequate explanation. Sean then tells the story of his own similar problem, which is that he isn't sure his girlfriend is still living at home as he works during the night and she works during the day so they never see each other. This has been going on for three weeks. But his friend doesn't ask: "Yes, but as I said before, what about the weekends? You must see her then. It doesn't make sense. What are you going on about, Sean? Are you on medication or something?" But let's be generous and assume that they both work seven days a week.

We see Sean checking to see if the soap and towels have been used. (In fact, bizarrely, he starts to carry the soap around with him.) But what about his girlfriend's conditioner and shampoo, sanpro and moisturiser, toothpaste and toothbrush. Let's go to the kitchen. What about food and drink? Is any missing? Has any been bought? In the bedroom, has the shared bed been made or not? Are her clothes being used and exchanged for clean ones? Is the laundry basket fuller? In the toilet, is the seat up or down? I mean, good grief!

And to cap it all Paul arranges to leave work early to see if his girlfriend is still living at home. Why doesn't he just phone her?

But it gets worse. In the last act although no-one told Vincent where the rest of the group are going he manages to find them. Lenny's love interest and Sean's girlfriend conveniently appear to be best friends and also manage to find the group. There isn't even the slightest attempt to explain any of these extraordinarily unlikely coincidences.

To be fair the dialogue is OK but not nearly good enough to make up for the weak characters or annoyingly lame story.

I heard one of actors interviewed and he promised "no guns, no drugs, no corsets." I thought, "great". But after half-an-hour of tedium I was yelling at the screen: "I want guns! I want drugs! I want corsets!"

It wouldn't have taken much to sort these problems out but on the official website the director boasts that the film wasn't script-edited. That's all you need to know.


Doris Day never lets a bad script get her down. Even in the most trying of circumstances, Day gives 100% and usually comes out unscathed. This comedy, perhaps inspired by a real-life New York City black-out in 1965 but actually adapted from a late-'50s French play by Claude Magnier, gives Doris little to do but spoof her own goody-goody image and, in the second-half, be comically sedated (which is amusing because of the spin Day gives to the situation). There are some funny lines here, yet the staginess of the material has obviously been carried over from the play...and instead of conjuring up some amusing incidents within the Big Apple, we get stuck in the suburbs. Doris' co-stars (Patrick O'Neal, Robert Morse, and Terry-Thomas) are not well-suited to her, and neither is the shapeless hairdo they've got her wearing. Still, it's not terrible, it features a few big laughs, and for Day-buffs it's a must-see. ** from ****


Only the most ardent DORIS DAY fan could find this one even bearable to watch. When one thinks of the wealth of material available for a story about New York City's most famous blackout, a film that could have dealt with numerous real-life stories of what people had to cope with, this scrapes the bottom of the barrel for lack of story-telling originality.

Once again Doris is indignant because she suspects she may have been compromised on the night of the blackout when she returned to her Connecticut lodgings, took a sleeping potion and woke up in the morning with a man who had done the same, wandering into the house by mistake.

Nobody is able to salvage this mess--not Doris, not ROBERT MORSE, TERRY-THOMAS, PATRICK O'NEAL or LOLA ALBRIGHT. As directed by Hy Averback, it's the weakest vehicle Day found herself in, committed to do the film because of her husband's machinations and unable to get out of it. Too bad.


For loyal Duran Duran fans who want to watch a good music video, skip this one. The producers decided to get creative and make this 80's video something of a sci-fi story, involving the evil Barbarella villain from which the band got its name.

What makes this idea fail is that right in the middle of some great 80's Duran Duran songs, confusing and annoying cut scenes take place showing the fictional antagonist trying to stop the band at one of their concerts. Not only is the good music repeatedly interrupted, but we have to suffer through some cheap spin-off story hosted by an evil Dr. Mario. It's almost too much to bear. 2/10


Ooof! This one was a stinker. It does not fall 'somewhere in between Star Wars and Thriller', thats for sure. In all actuality, it falls somewhere between the cracks of a Wham! video and Captain EO, only with not as big of a budget, and a lot more close ups of ugly teenagers crying. Simon Le Bon preens front and center, while the rest of the band gamely tries to hide the fact that they stole their whole career from Roxy Music's last 3 albums. Brief clips from Barbarella add nothing. Avoid at all costs. (However, I liked the part when they played 'Hungry Like The Wolf' but why was there a tiger lurking in the audience changing into a woman painted with tiger stripes? I mean, they aren't singing 'Eye of the Tiger' or 'Hungry like the Tiger' it's a Wolf! Whatever.) A DVD of Duran Duran's '80s videos is probably worth a look for nostalgia's sake


It was 1974 and it starred Martin Sheen.

That alone says what to expect of this movie.

And it was a movie. According to the movie, Slovik had reformed, got a good woman, and didn't want to fight.

In real life, Slovik may have been a naive innocent, or he may have just wanted to manipulate the system.

Whoever Slovik was or wasn't is for history to decide, but this was a movie that dealt with dessertion at a time when a country was questioning why it was fighting, and the movie took sides.

With no regard to servicemen who were in Viet Nam either in 1974 (as Willie Nelson would say, let's tell the truth, it was about the Viet Nam war, not WWII), EoES was as propagandistic as Gung Ho was in the forties.

According to this movie, Slovik stated his position, plain and simple. He had a nervous problem. Heck, I have a clinical nervous condition, and trust me, if I had done military duty, it would have been no problem for me to either just let my nerves go and fail at my tasks and get a demotion or put on KP duty or latrine duty with no problem.

If we believe the teleflick, Slovik didn't have that option, no doubt because of his criminal history.

Whatever the viewer wants to believe is up to the viewer. I've learned that movies from this decade or that decade, in dealing with service or military duty, will pretty much take the same stance over and over.

1940s and 1950s, serve your country.

1960s and 1970s, mock your country.

This is the history.

The whole movie seemed predictably Hollywood to me. He refused to serve and only when he was being strapped up to be executed does he show emotion.

Such an emotional outburst could have easily worked to his advantage in his declaration of his nervous condition, but obviously the movie wanted to show him as a human being and only when he is about to die does he become sorrowful.

I'm not a Catholic, but I thought the recital of the hail Mary by Ned Beatty and Sheen at the end, with the Lord's prayer, was funny as it sounded like they were trying to see who could say it faster.

I don't see how this movie could be watched without realizing it was aimed at Tricky Dick Nixon and the Viet Nam war.

I hope it was all worth it for Slovik and anyone who chose to follow his example.


Too bad, I really like Kristen Cloke and Gary Busey. But the director failed to put this together. There's a lot of action, a lot of promise, but it all comes off hokey. The director didn't do his job. Promising action comes off lame. So much seems contrived in a desperate attempt to save the film. This version of "The Rage" (DirecTV credits it as 1996) simply isn't worth the time to watch it. Another director would have done a better job.


Aside from the horrendous acting and the ridiculous and ludicrous plot, this movie wasn't too bad. Unfortunately, that doesn't leave much movie not to suck. Do not waste your time on this film, even if you find yourself suffering from insomnia, as I did. Watch an infomercial instead.


Of all the films I have seen, this one, The Rage, has got to be one of the worst yet. The direction, LOGIC, continuity, changes in plot-script and dialog made me cry out in pain. "How could ANYONE come up with something so crappy"? Gary Busey is know for his "B" movies, but this is a sure "W" movie. (W=waste).

Take for example: about two dozen FBI & local law officers surround a trailer house with a jeep wagoneer. Inside the jeep is MA and is "confused" as to why all the cops are about. Within seconds a huge gun battle ensues, MA being killed straight off. The cops blast away at the jeep with gary and company blasting away at them. The cops fall like dominoes and the jeep with Gary drives around in circles and are not hit by one single bullet/pellet. MA is killed and gary seems to not to have noticed-damn that guy is tough. Truly a miracle, not since the six-shooter held 300 bullets has there been such a miracle.


I have been a huge Lynn Peterson fan ever since her breakthrough role in the 1988 blockbuster movie "Far North", and even though I loved her in her one other film "Slow" (2004) where she plays "Francis", this is by far and away her strongest role.

Lynn, as I'm sure you all know (or should), plays the critical role of "Driver".

Unfortunately, other than Lynn's amazing performance, I'm afraid this movie doesn't really have much going for it.

Oh wait - there was one other thing - the amazing creativity of the editing to remove profanity for TV viewers. Memorable lines like: "You son-of-a-gun!", "You son-of-a-witch!", "Shoot!", and "Well, Forget You!"

O.K. Bye.

P.S.: Does anyone know where I can get another Lynn Peterson poster?


Cecil B. deMille's 1922 parlor-to-prison tearjerker Manslaughter finds the lovely Leatrice Joy as a good-at-heart but decadent young lady with more money than she knows what to do with. Her recklessness leads to imprisonment, which in turn leads to her regeneration. Thomas Meighan is the crusading district attorney who has made it his personal crusade to bring out the goodness and wholesomeness in Lydia (Joy) but he gets sidetracked by alcohol and once she is released, it is up to her to rescue him!

If the plot doesn't sound too bad, you'll be floored by the woeful presentation. The quality of deMille's direction is very low, and he does not show any particular skill that is unique to him. The photography is standard and flat, and the editing is hardly more dynamic. One could easily classify it as a fashion show and be pretty correct. DeMille gets to dress Miss Joy up in so many different types of clothes (evening gowns, golfing costumes, motoring costumes, piles of furs) that it's subtitle could be 'Fashions of 1922'

One thing more disappointing than the photography or editing or the direction is the acting, which is mostly flat and wooden. When it is not, it is merely routine silent gesturing, rolling eye balls, twitching eye brows and deliberate pointing and arm movements. What would have been enlivened for modern viewers by mugging and scene chewing of some of the worst silent films, is here merely dull to watch. The only member of the cast who succeeds in any form of excellence is Lois Wilson, who is not only beautiful but is able to play her role naturally. She is convincing and endearing in tearful close-ups, as long as you don't read the moralizing title card that follows once she opens her mouth to speak. Like I said, everybody else is droningly routine, Joy, Meighan, even Julia Faye. Her performance here makes a good argument for why she never attained true stardom.

The worst and most amusing part of this movie is the heavy moralistic tone that carries through all of it. Meighan's character has plenty of intertitles where he drones on about how the youth of America is declining in it's moral stance, and going right back to the decadence of Rome. (insert absurd flashback) This movie's moralizing has been described as Victorian, but it's further than that. It has so little bearing in reality that I have a feeling audiences at that time didn't take it any more seriously than modern viewers could.

This movie is exactly what the unknowing tend to think of as a 'typical' silent movie, with it's archaic moral structure, wooden acting and bad direction. DeMille shows that he could be a terrible director, with no sense of pacing, camera placement, or skill in handling either script or actors. I can't imagine anybody in their right mind taking it seriously. Boring, slow and idiotic, I recommend it to hardcore silent movie dorks like myself only.


I am quite a fan of novelist/screenwriter Michael Chabon. His novel "Wonder Boys" became a fantastic movie by Curtis Hanson. His masterful novel "The Amazing Adventures of Kavalier and Clay" won the Pulitzer Prize a few years back, and he had a hand in the script of "Spider Man 2", arguably the greatest comic book movie of all time.

Director Rawson Marshall Thurber has also directed wonderful comedic pieces, such as the gut-busting "Dodgeball" and the genius short film series "Terry Tate: Office Linebacker". And with a cast including Peter Saarsgard, Sienna Miller, Nick Nolte and Mena Suvari, this seems like a no-brainer.

It is. Literally.

Jon Foster stars as Art Bechstein, the son of a mobster (Nolte) who recently graduated with a degree in Economics. Jon is in a state of arrested development: he works a minimum wage job at Book Barn, has a vapid relationship with his girlfriend/boss, Phlox (Suvari), which amounts to little more than copious amounts of sex, with no plans other than to chip away at a career for which he has zero passion.

One night at a party, an ex-roommate introduces Jon to Jane (Miller), a beautiful, smart violinist. Later that night they go out for pie, and she asks Jon a question that begins to shake him from his catatonic state of existence, "I want you to tell me something that you have never told a single soul. If you do, it will make this night indelible." Jon then tells her a reoccurring dream of his in which he wanders about town looking at the faces of strangers passing him by, yet none of them look him in the eye. "I imagine it must be what death feels like," he says.

The next day Jane's wild boyfriend Cleveland (Saarsgard) kidnaps Jon from work and takes him out to a hulking abandoned steel mill, and soon Jon, Cleveland and Jane are spending every waking moment together going to punk rock concerts, doing drugs and drinking lots of alcohol. This doesn't sit well with Phlox, who pushes Jon for a more personal relationship, namely letting her meet his new friends and his father. The film then attempts to take us on Jon's journey as he shakes off the shackles imposed on him by his father, Phlox and his dead-end job as he finds freedom and expression through his relationships with Cleveland and Jane.

There is a problem having us follow Jon throughout the film: he's completely uninteresting. He has no ambitions, passions or goals. He walks through life like the invisible wraith he described to Jane the night they met. At the outset this isn't a problem. But he never gets any more interesting. He's a completely passive character. He simply follows along the bohemian Cleveland and Jane, but he never once gives us any inkling as to what he cares about or wants to to do with himself.

Consequently, the film and its supporting characters have nowhere to go and little to do other than party, have sex and get in arguments. In other words, much ado about nothing. What we have here is the shallow skin of a good movie without anything on the inside. Sweeping cinematography, ponderous voice-over with characters staring off into the distance, lots of sex scenes both straight and gay, big arguments, more angry sex, a chase scene and a tragic death... but it doesn't seem to matter. Ironically, at one point Jane, confused at a number of Jon's aimless actions, asks him, "What's going on, Jon? What is this all about?" Yes, Jon, do tell. We in the audience are dying to know, too.

The title "The Mysteries of Pittsburgh" must refer to the characters themselves, because that's what they are. They are all facades, one-dimensional stand-ins for actual people. The film never lets us in. We never know what makes any of them tick. We see them do lots of things, but we don't know why. And the absence of "why" is one of the worst things a movie can have.


Based on the novel by Michael Chabon, The Mysteries of Pittsburgh is about the young son of a notorious gangster who spends his last teenage summer roaming around with two friends. The year is 1983, and young Art Bechstein (Jon Foster) is at a crossroads. Completely opposed to his father's lifestyle, Art plans to become a stockbroker. Visually contrived with painful attempts to create beautiful hip indie cinematography, the whole film feels like the director - whose previous effort Dodgeball was funny if outright commercial - is desperately seeking indie credibility by cobbling together aspects of other indie films but sprinkling it with stars like Mena Suvari, Sienna Miller and Nick Nolte. Like so many of the star-laden premieres at Sundance this year it felt like this was a secrety studio-sponsored vanity project to help the director earn some indie credibility points - it failed in that respect and as a film in its own right.


A friend of mine gave me this movie. A friend of mine is now in a hospital were a team of doctors are trying to surgically remove a DVD casing from his ***.

I got quit excited by the prospects of an other Michael Chabon movie. After all his novels have brought me much entertainment and previous screenplay adaptations were great, but boy, was I wrong.

First off the people that did the casting must have been asleep whilst doing so. I imagine the castings went something like this. "Tell me, do you like fish?" "Yes I enjoy fish very much." "Wonder full, you're hired. Have some money."

Than there is the script. I have read Chabon, who I hope went blind before he could see this piece of dong, and it has absolutely nothing to do with his novel. I'm not quit sure why it annoyed me like it did, but it might have something to do with the fact that listening to a speech impaired 90 year old drunk duck hunter with a right cranial lobe dysfunction would have been a treat in comparison to the one-liners these 2nd degree model massacre kids spat out.

This is an actual line from the movie; "If you tell me something that you've never said out loud to anyone before, than this moment becomes unique!" Unique? Does it? Does it really? Off course not you plank. Please pass me the Imodium. I'll have a whole ****ing strip.

The directing is... well. I've got nothing. Maybe Rawson Marshall Thurber just got word his grandmother exploded or something. Stick to directing comedies. No stick to directing commercials.

This movie is so horrible it left me banging my head against a wall so hard it brought me back to the stone age. I give it 2 stars because I don't wanna be the guy that watched a 1 star movie.


...they bothered making this movie? Anyone? I didn't think so.

If you are looking for a coming-of-age movie, go rent Summer of '42. This is no Summer of '42.

When your big stars are Nolte & Sarsgaard, & Sarsgaard gets more screen time, that is your first warning sign And, of course, for such an "artsy" movie, there is plenty of cursing & skin flung around, just to make it look "artsy".

Sarsgaard did his usual uninteresting, cardboard character, punctuated by moments that were supposed to be intense. The intensity is that of someone with bi-polar disorder.

Miller is most famous for her looks & what she had to say about the city of Pittsburgh after this movie. Pittsburgh SHOULD hold a grudge against her. She misrepresented an actual Pittsburgh native.

Foster gave Sarsgaard a run for his money in the cardboard acting style. Wow! Was this his first role after high school graduation?

So, we have this weird triangle. Foster has a crush on Miller, but is with his boss/girlfriend. He can't take Miller to bed, & won't take his boss to bed. So, he hangs with Sarsgaard & Miller, & watches them get it on.

Then, after one of Sarsgaard's pseudo-intense moments, Foster & Miller get it on, a scene that we are "treated" to in every sloppy, moaning detail. Finally, just to round it all out, Foster & Sarsgaard get it on, with Foster in the Miller role. Now I know how 2 guys get it on (as if that was ever anything I needed to know).

After all that, all that's left is the tragic ending for one character & the retrospective views of the remaining 2. It gets me right in the pit of my stomach. Oh, wait! That was the pepperoni pizza I just had.

I'd like back the time this movie took out of my life, please.


Wow. What a terrible adaptation of a beautiful novel. Here are just a few gripes. - The screenwriter eliminated two major characters from the book. - Plot has been grotesquely altered. - Voiceovers sound as if they were directly lifted from written passages (which may read well but are not the same when spoken, especially with Chabon's writing style). - The acting is more wooden than a log cabin. (Esp. Bechstein) - This is supposed to be set in 1983??? Feels more like 2003...

To be fair I couldn't bring myself to finish watching this movie, so it's possible that it redeemed itself... (sarcasm). I truly hope that no one paid to see this, or at least anyone who read the book hoping for something decent (a la Wonder Boys). I like Chabon as a writer but he should be ASHAMED of this adaptation.

No stars.


Noel Coward,a witty and urbane man,was friends with Louis Mountbatten.Mr Coward,a long-time admirer of all things naval,was commissioned to write a story loosely based on the loss of Mountbatten's ship.In a peculiarly British way it was considered that a film about the Royal Navy losing an encounter at sea would be good propaganda.It was also considered a good idea to have Mr Coward play the part of the ship's captain.Amang the many qualities needed to command a fighting ship,the ability to speak in a very clipped voice and sing sophisticated "point" songs does not come very high up the list at Admiralty House,or at least one would hope not.A captain must earn and retain the respect of the wardroom and the lower deck alike. Mr Coward might have had the respect of the gentlemen of the chorus at Drury Lane and Binkie Beaumont might have been terrified of him but his ability to tame,mould and direct a ship's crew in wartime must be brought into question.He folds himself languorously around the bridge,patronising the other ranks and barking orders at the officers,he only needed a silk dressing gown and a cigarette holder to seem right at home. Much is made of the "warship as a microcosm of British Society"theme,and the crew largely comprises of the usual cheery cockneys,canny northerners etc.without whom no war can be fought.They spend most of their time on board smoking,moaning about Lord Haw Haw and getting blown up. Never mind,there's plenty more where they came from.Once ashore they go straight to the pub where they spend most of their time smoking,moaning about Lord Haw Haw and getting blown up .By contrast Mr Coward lives in a dream cottage with a rose covered door somewhere very quiet with very little chance of getting blown up.He,his lady wife and their two rosy cheeked cherubs converse in ludicrously convoluted tones and said lady wife spends much of her time knitting things for the poor unfortunates who comprise his crew and who she refers to by their surnames.That nice young master Johnny Mills has a prominent role as a completely unbelievable lower deck type who worships Mr Coward in much the same way as a thrashed dog will worship its master.He marries his girlfriend after kissing her on the cheek,presumably on the grounds that she might be pregnant after such unfettered passion. So yes,we do have a microcosm of British society here,but perhaps not in the way the makers of "In which we serve" intended. At the end Mr Coward gets one last chance to patronise his men as the few survivors shuffle past him,"Goodbye Edwards,it was a privilege to sail with you"he enunciates as if he was reciting "How now brown cow". It may have been David Lean's feature debut,but the hand of Noel Coward looms large right across this picture.He was a funny and clever man,better suited to writing waspish plays about poor little rich girls and boys interspersed with the occasional wry song.He had a talent to amuse,no doubt,but he could neither write nor speak convincing dialogue. Being Noel Coward was a full-time job,he had no time to be a real person.


A battleship is sinking... Its survivors, hanging onto a nearby liferaft, sit there doing nothing while we go into each of their minds for a series of long flashbacks.

Even though Noel Coward's name is the only one that you notice during the credits, everything that's cinematic in it is because of Lean. And on technical terms, its very good. David Lean just KNEW films from the get-go. There are many moments where Coward's studied dialogue takes a second seat and Lean's visual sense takes centre stage. Try the soldiers getting off the ship near the end, and that whole scene; the tracking shot towards the hymn singing, the scene where we're inside a house that gets bombed.

Noel Coward is one of the worst actors i've ever seen. He's totally wooden, not displaying emotion, character or humanity. You can see it in his eyes that he's not really listening to what the other performer is saying, he's just waiting for them to finish so he can rush out his own line.

7/10.

Its episodic, a bit repetitive, and the flashbacks overwhelm the story: there's no central story that they advance, just give general insights into the characters. Still, its an interesting film worth a watch - and a good debut for Lean. Its not a very deep or penetrating film, and its definitely a propaganda film, but its also a showcase for Lean's editing skills - its all about how the pieces are put together.


This is your typical Priyadarshan movie--a bunch of loony characters out on some silly mission. His signature climax has the entire cast of the film coming together and fighting each other in some crazy moshpit over hidden money. Whether it is a winning lottery ticket in Malamaal Weekly, black money in Hera Pheri, "kodokoo" in Phir Hera Pheri, etc., etc., the director is becoming ridiculously predictable. Don't get me wrong; as clichéd and preposterous his movies may be, I usually end up enjoying the comedy. However, in most his previous movies there has actually been some good humor, (Hungama and Hera Pheri being noteworthy ones). Now, the hilarity of his films is fading as he is using the same formula over and over again.

Songs are good. Tanushree Datta looks awesome. Rajpal Yadav is irritating, and Tusshar is not a whole lot better. Kunal Khemu is OK, and Sharman Joshi is the best.


Priyadarshan- whenever a person heard his name, his first thought would be 'comedy'. That is what this man is known for, or rather, was known for. After giving stupendous blockbuster comedies like Hungama, Hera Pheri and Hunchul, his train derailed slowly with movies like Chupke Chupke and a few others whose names I can't recollect for now. Now with hideous films like Dhol, the first word that would strike our mind after hearing his name would be- 'torture'.

Dhol is a mixture of bad, unfunny toilet jokes, somewhat of drama, poor suspense and idiocracy. The only good thing about Dhol was one or two of the scenes which were funny, though not witty, and secondly, except for Kunal Khemu and the hysterical grandma, the acting was decent.

Speaking of the acting, I felt that Rajpal Yadav and Sharman Joshi were at the top (if you compare them with the others in the movie), then came Tusshar Kapoor, then Tanushree and at the last the two idiots mentioned above. The flaw in Kunal Khemu was that he was loud in his jokes and even in his acting. The grandma, firstly resembled a ghost, plus she was not funny at all but rather silly.

The plot was the same, seen before one. Four boys behind girls and in need of money, but with a few twists. There is a 'bad' man who is preposterously stupid and dumb. And at last, the good wins over the bad and everything is fine. The idea of having a Dhol with a tone full of cash in it is simply not witty.

The worst thing about the movie is its length. After an hour or so, you get exhausted and want to leave the theater. But being a critic, it is my responsibility to tolerated the whole two and half hours of the movie. THe movie goes on and on and the same kind of jokes are repeated again and again and the situations are perennial just at a different place.

If your mother-in-law has arrived to your house and starts mocking you at everything, then send her for this movie and have fun. 3 out of 10.


The movie starts with a nice song Looks like a thriller, with Arbaaz Khan walking around in a suspicious way but then suddenly we are forced to a comedy With the routine stupid idiots like GOLMAAL with Tusshar, Sharman, Kunal and Rajpal acting like grown up kids Their scenes are quite funny first and then get boring There is a bored sub plot of Tanushree's brother being killed Towards the end the film tries to get serious with the villain kidnapping our heroes but here it gets even stupid Then a lengthy bashing bashing climax straight out of HERA PHERI and wait, there is also a long chase in Payal's house

The film is so boring that it makes you fall asleep

Direction by Priyan is very bad music(Pritam) is routine except the first song

Cinematography is bad, the film has a cheap look throughout

Rajpal Yadav is good in his 1st scene where he goes to pay his rent and i was happy that the actor isn't loud and over the top like other films But No, He becomes his usual self and gets irritating most of the times Tusshar should not speak in a film, his dial delivery is terrible Sharman is the saving grace, He is the sole actor who acts very well in this film Kunal Khemmu tries hard in his first comic film as an adult, But doesn't impress much Tanushree is bad as always Arbaaz Khan gets less scope and is usual Payal is a non actress Murli Sharma is terrible


Another Priyadarshan/Vohra flick another movie that was seen for TP rather than actual desire, the only reason i did see this movie was the fact that the regulars were not there in this movie (Akshay Paresh and many others), but needless to say i had low expectations from this movie.

I was happy with the casting in general except, Rajpal Yadav who once again annoys to no limit, he does however extract some laughs, but these were those standard slapstick non-original jokes, in fact this whole movie is like playing the dhol, I mean it takes hardly any talent to make loud noise, or even play the odd good beat on the dhol for a small time does it?? Its only those who can carry different beats in a nice sequential manner, for an extended period who are considered great.

Which brings us to the other instrument, the Dumroo hardly requires any talent, it has no variations, and it may be enjoyable for a while the monkey dances (hmm sounds like Rajpal Yadav, good analogy), but its not a instrument that will entertain you for long or even get you dancing like the Dhol does.

This movie was like the dhol and the dumroo being played, sometimes the Dhol was played sometimes the dumroo, sometimes both together, but mostly the Dumroo played alone and the monkey danced. And like any 24 year old sooner than later I got bored.

The movie has some good Dhol (good) moments but after a while all i heard was the annoying Dumroo (entertaining initially, then tolerable then irritating), the large ordinary parts really ensure this movie is mainly good for a few funny clips on "MERE BHAINS KO ANDA KYUN MARA" (if you haven't watched it watch it on Filmy, it comes in the evenings and is really quite funny).

This movie had its moments, the actors did a fine job, except Rajpal Yadav (who can act though, I've seen him in Main Meri Patni) who annoys more than entertains, I've said it many time and I'll say it again I really think Sharman Joshi and Tushar Kapoor have a fine career ahead of them in the multi-star comedies especially.

Some scenes were really funny such as the aborted attempts to impress the girls father, the zany attempts to woo the girl and take her away from each other.

But after this was over there was a failed attempt to make this movie into much more with a mystery added, this mean that once the girl was in, the following 45-60 mins was increasingly torturous, the climax was "SO BAD ITS ALMOST GOOD CATEGORY", I mean what were they thinking if you had to have tense ending at least make some attempt to make it palatable.

The movie is also extremely predictable, there's hardly a scene you cant predict and you wont be breaking into spontaneous burst of laughter here, its more like you see it coming and almost start laughing before the gag.

The movie follows a gradual decline throughout the movies except for the odd bump, down or up, and then rapidly tumbles downhill once they have made friends with the girl.

Most of the really bad scenes were towards the end, one the movie tries to be more than a run of the mill comedy, also many of the jokes were very very stale and reeked of repetition, THE LAST 10-15 WAS ESPECIALLY DISTATEFULL AND COMPLETELY SPOILS THIS MOVIE.

I didn't find Tanushree Datta quite the siren she was to play, and her acting talent is in serious question, especially in view of her non-appealing looks, if you cant be a HOT and cant act how much time can you survive.

Technically also this movie was weak, with the constant female gaze and shoddy lighting and camera-work.

The songs except the title track were no good either, when the songs played in the 2nd half I could feel the collective gasp from the audience.

In all a movie that's just ordinary merely because of the cast, and the very low expectations.

Avoiding it wont be a bad idea.

And if it has to be watched watching it on TV for free or a very cheap matinée or something is a must, if you pay full multiplex rates you will feel disappointed.

-s lots of stale jokes, RAJPAL YADAV, LAST 45 MINS AND LAST 15 MINS ESPECIALLY, bad technically, bad songs.

+/-s tries to be more than what it was, not the regular cast (I'm happier for it), Tanushree Datta.

+s some good scenes towards the beginning,title song, good acting and cast except RY.

total 4.5/10 (I'm trying to be objective here, i don't like Rajpal Yadav or Tanushree Datta and this movie did meet my very low expectations, so I'm giving it the benefit of all doubts, on absolute terms this movie was not more than a 4)


A typical Goth chick (Rainbow Harvest looking like a cross between Winona Ryder in Beetlejuice and Boy George) gets even with people she feels have wronged her with the help of an old haunted mirror that she finds in the new house she and her mom (horror mainstay, Karen Black, the only remotely good thing about this travesty) buy. The acting's pretty laughably bad (especially when Rainbow interacts with the aforementioned mirror) and there are no scares or suspense to be had. This film inexplicably spawned thus for 3 sequels each slightly more atrocious than the last. People looking for a similarly themed, but far superior cinematic endeavor would be well advised to just search out the episode of "Friday the 13th: the Series" where a geeky girl finds an old cursed compact mirror. That packs more chills in it's scant 40 minutes than this whole franchise has provided across it's 4 films.

My Grade: D

Eye Candy: Charlie Spradling provides the obligatory T&A


`In the tradition of 'Carrie' and 'Heathers'? Try `a shameless ripoff of not only those two films, but 'The Evil Dead' and 'The Shining' as well.' That said, they really don't make bad horror movies like this anymore, and that's a shame, 'cause it's a gas.

Rainbow Harvest is the Winona substitute here, and although she barely does more than mumble her lines (and occasionally scream, `YOU'RE UGLY!!!' into her haunted mirror), she's Goth way before it's fashionable, so you have to respect her. (And she's quite creative about it too, accessorizing with black leather scarves and a kind of black-spray-painted Hawaiian-Punch-guy hat. Eat your heart out, Cher.)

Karen Black overacts a bit, but she's not totally without dignity, and you can't help but sympathize with her. (Unless you're a certain friend of mine, who asked, `Who is that, Horse Lips from 'M.A.S.H'?' the first time she came onscreen.)

There are decent supporting performances by Kristin Dattilo (as the square chick who befriends Rainbow), Ricky Paull Goldin (in his trademarked wisecracking hunk role), and William `Larry, Darryl and Darryl' Sanderson (as some kind of pet undertaker, or something). But it's sad to see the once smokin' Yvonne DeCarlo reduced to playing what can only be thought of as the Charlotte Rae part.

The eighties were the heyday for hilarious, mindbogglingly dumb horror movies like this, and `Mirror, Mirror' was one of the last of its kind. Definitely worth a look.


I got Mirror Mirror mainly because Yvonne De Carlo was in it (I thought she was great in American Gothic) but sadly she didn't have a very big role in this film. It starts off OK and the pace moves along nicely...but by the end it starts getting a bit tedious and dull. That's not to say that this is a boring film, but it's just very average and nothing spectacular. I didn't like the "posession" side of it and there were no decent gore scenes. Plus the 'main' story was very confusing and the ending doesn't make much sense at all. I did however like the story surrounding the Gothic girl and how she got revenge on her tormentors.

I wouldn't particularly recommend Mirror Mirror to horror fans - it's nothing to wet yourself over.


Mirror. Mirror (1990) is a flat out lame movie. Why did I watch movies like this when I was younger? Who knows? Maybe I was one for punishing myself by watching one terrible movie after another. I don't know, I guess I needed a hobby during my teen years. A teenage outcast (Rainbow Harvest) seeks solace in an old mirror. Soon she learns about the horrific power this antique mirror has and uses it to strike out against those who have wronged her. Movies like these, the power giver has a nasty side effect. This one changes her inside and out if she likes it or not.

A mess of a movie that for some reason was restored on d.v.d. a few years back. I don't know why. They should have left it on the shelf and collect dust. People love this movie foe some reason. If you do I would like to know why. Until then I dislike this movie and I have no reason to ever watch it again.

Not recommended at all.


I've been using IMDb for a few years now, but have never written any reviews before. However, this movie so disappointed me (even with a modest score of 6.4 at the time of writing) that I couldn't keep quiet anymore.

Noise is the story of a New Yorker (Tim Robbins)who is so perturbed by noise pollution that he takes on an alter-ego as a as a vigilante, "The Rectifier", and vandalizes any cars he finds with a car-alarm sounding.

I take the name of the movie to be somewhat of a misnomer. Although there are one or two instances of other sources of noise being addressed or mentioned, the only true focus of our protagonist is car alarms. Car alarms, car alarms, car alarms. There is really no other focus. When the movie tries to tie other examples of noise pollution to the problem of car alarms, it seems to be just thrown in to give merit to the actions of Robbins' character.

Yes, we're all annoyed by noise. Nobody likes the sound of car alarms. Of course we all have that internal urge to take a baseball bat to a shrieking vehicle, and this movie uses that fact, and pretty much that fact alone, to sell this movie. I say 'pretty much' because there is also a blatantly contrived sexual relationship (including a completely needless threesome) which is obviously thrown in for those movie-goers who need such things thrown in in order to enjoy a movie. Honestly, it's eye-rolling.

Robbin's character, very shortly into the movie, becomes completely unrelatable. It seems less that he decides not to put up with the noise anymore, and more that by focusing so much on the noise he has begun to lose his sanity. The first half of the movie is essentially the story of how he turns from just an angry, car-bashing dude into this hero of the little guy, The Rectifier. However... the transformation doesn't take place. He just renames himself.

I could go on for a while. Annoying generalized social commentary comes in every now and then to add to the pretentiousness of the movie, and the self-satisfied smirk which never quite leaves Robbins face doesn't help either.

Overall, I think it's very obvious what this movie is trying to be, as it's pretty much shoved down your throat, but in my opinion, it fails in a big way. Just one guy's opinion, cheers.


What "Noise" fails to do is get us to understand its character. Tim Robbins plays an obsessive New Yorker who can't deal with the obtrusive noises of the city any longer, particularly car alarms. It's an odd idea for a film, which has about as much creative credibility as "Death Wish." It is clever at points; particularly a scene in which our hero is trying to read through Hagel, "I'm too stupid to be understanding this." He reads and rereads a paragraph in confusion, we read it and don't get it either.Just then a car alarm goes off. Throughout the movie is constant interference of alarms and city noises. Though, all in all it does little to help us understand our hero, who allows this all to ruin his marriage and gets distracted with side plots instead of digging deeper-into his persona.

The film-making itself is too oblivious to notice its own sound problems, shoddy editing, and visible boom mikes. No, "Noise" isn't all-bad. William Hurt is at least colorful. At least the ending doesn't fall flat. Overall it drives home a logistical point, one you haven't probably thought of. At least I hadn't. Though all in all, ninety minutes long, it couldn't have ended sooner. The story dragged on and seemed to be lost as soon as it started.

This is another one of those movies that you might see at a film festival, but probably won't get picked up for distribution. Check it out on DVD if you're really partial to someone involved in the project. Otherwise skip it.


This is one of those topics I can relate to a little more than most people as I hate noise & have no idea how those in big cities, New York especially how people get any sleep at all! It astounds me that people can stand all the noise out there these days. The basic plot of the film is that it makes for an interesting topic. It's too bad that's about it. Tim Robbbins is decent although except for a couple of scenes (especially with the absolute supermodel looking Margarita Leiveva) he didn't seem to really be altogether there. My biggest hope for this film is that casting agents will see the absolutely stunning & talented actress to boot, Margarita Levieva. She doesn't have a lot to do, but she is supermodel beautiful. Even when they are trying to make her look at more girl next door. It makes me sad that there can be people such as Paris Hilton & Kim Kardashian in the world w/no redeemable skills or talent, to have more fame and success than this talented beauty. I didn't care for much of this film because the script isn't very good, but am glad I got to see some new talent. I hope that producers & directors think about Margarita when they need a beautiful new actress to be in there big budget film. If they can make Megan Fox a star (c'mon she isn't that hot, & her acting "talent" is worse than made-for Disney channel TV shows) from 1 film, it should happen easily for her, as she is gorgeous & has talent! I'd recommend her changing her last name so we can pronounce it and make it more marketable. Here's hoping this makes her career, & if there is any justice she can pop up on some big summer movie or two in the next couple years.


WE FAW DOWN

Aspect ratio: 1.33:1

Sound format: Silent

(Black and white - Short film)

Stan 'n' Ollie get mixed up with a couple of floozies (Kay Deslys and Vera White) after setting out to visit a theatre which burns down in their absence! Needless to say, their tyrannical wives (Vivien Oakland and Bess Flowers) are not amused...

Leo McCarey's OK comedy laid the narrative framework for William Seiter's masterpiece SONS OF THE DESERT (1934), with L&H playing brow-beaten victims of circumstance, forced to tell a monstrous lie which backfires in spectacular fashion. Much of it is very funny, especially the scene in which Stan is teased by Deslys, leading to a violent game of push and shove. However, some of the fun is undercut by Oakland and Flowers, playing their roles completely straight, which adds an element of unpleasantness to the 'henpecked husband' scenario. Originally released in the UK as WE SLIP UP.


Why do movie makers always go against the author's work? I mean, yes, things have to be condensed for the sake of viewer interest, but look at Anne of Green Gables. They did a wonderful job of combining important events into a cohesive whole that was simply delightful. I can't believe that they chose to combine three novels together for Anne of Avonlea into such a dreadful mess. Look at all they missed out on by doing that . . . Paul Irving, little Elizabeth, the widows, Windy Poplars . . . and Anne's college years, for heaven's sake!!! Wouldn't it have been delightful to meet Priscilla and all the rest of the Redmond gang? Kevin Sullivan should have taken things one movie at a time, instead of jumbling them all together and combining characters and events the way he did. This movie was good, if you leave the novels out of it!! But L.M. Montgomery's beautiful work is something that should not be denied. This movie was a let down after seeing the successful way he brough Anne of Green Gables to life.


This movie is like the material S.E. Hinton was writing in the 1970s and Copola was adapting to the screen in the early 80s, and, had Trueblood actually been a product of either, the results might've been much better (especially in the acting department). Instead, we get a rather so-bad-its-funny piece of mediocrity.

Jeff Fahey plays Ray Trueblood, a former street rumbler, I suppose is the accurate description. This was in the days of action movies that used guys in their 40s and mid30s and dressed them up in greaser threads or some kind of more effeminate selection of gang garb and they fought to lousy 80s music. Nonetheless, Ray is the lone caretaker of his younger brother, Donny (Chad Lowe in a part where he screams a lot), who he is forced to leave behind inexplicably in a train station when, on the run from the cops, he is nabbed and forced to serve time in the Marines. Flash forward to present day and Ray is back in town and looking for his brother who has also become part of the street gangs, although in a gang that was Ray's adversary and now old scores must be violently settled (and again, cops must be dodged and this time, a lady's honor defended in the action film sense) before Ray can carry on life at normal pace with his brother, Donny.

For the most part, the film is quite ridiculous. For me, most of this has to do with far too much overacting, although not by Fahey or Sherlyn Fenn who plays the waitress he befriends. The guys in the gang and Lowe himself seem to do quite a bit of needless exaggerated as New York street toughs. Although, the bigger hang up is recycled plot lines and perhaps a kind of movie that was well past its prime as a product of 1989.


Three Russian aristocrats soak up the decadence of Monte Carlo, despite the fact they are down to their last franc. In order to support their lavish lifestyle, the three use the services of a counterfeiter, and use the notes at the casinos, hoping to exchange the bogus currency for a jackpot. Andrew Hughes, a US envoy, arrives at Monaco with his wife Helen, and the three decide to make pals with the visitors, hoping for financial assistance. One of the three Russians, Count Sergius Karamzin, plans to go further, with continuous advance towards Helen, while disappointing the Count's maid, who loves Sergius. Eventually, circumstances play their hand against the three aristocrats. Its obvious that Von Stroheim was trying to convey a message (with the foolishness of American women and the improper behaviors of the aristocrats), rather than tell a story, and the film really can bore modern audiences, like me, easily by doing that. Even the acting, which is great in later EvS like Greed and the Wedding March, is just run of the mill here. The film could have used improvements on various levels. Rating, 3.


This was director von Stroheim's third effort - it is quite crude and shows none of the exceptional flair for the camera and editing mastery he would display a few years later with his masterworks, GREED and THE WEDDING MARCH. Essentially we have a trio of grifters, masquerading as a Russian count and two Russian princesses who have rented a villa in Monte Carlo. Their aim is to use counterfeit money at the gambling tables and win a fortune. Part of that plan is for the Count (von Stroheim) to insinuate himself between a visiting American ambassador and his "foolish" wife, wooing her and hoping to gain some money by playing on her weaknesses. He makes the mistake of also taking the life savings of the maid, whom he has promised to marry. When she sees them together, she sets fire to the room, (von Stroheim and his prey are on the room's balcony). Here von Stroheim first establishes his persona as "the man you love to hate." He is thoroughly bad and his character flaws eventually bring him to a very bad and deserved end. The film is crude in its cinematography and editing and not worth seeing unless you are fascinated by the director. There is a cute bit- when he first attempts to meet the Ambassador's wife, she is reading a book - we see the title - FOOLISH WIVES by Erich von Stroheim. This was originally envisioned as a 210 minute film, cut down to 140 minutes by the studio and finally released at 70 minutes. The restoration on Kino Video restores surviving footage (damaged in some way in most scenes) from the alternate earlier version to give us a 107 minute print.


Dil was a memorable movie that bring to the celluloid a great director like Indra Kumar. The movie followed with Beta, Ishq, Raja & Masti all of whom were superb.

But then every successful director gives a few horrible movies alongwith some hits too. Pyare Mohan is one such movie.

Though the comedies are told nicely but then they fail the viewer to laugh. Comparing with the kind of comedy movies being made today this is a dumb.

If you really want to watch a movie and laugh, please don't watch this. Because the pathetic comedy will make you cry only.

In short, the movie is worth a miss.


This movie is even a big step down form the typical fare dished out by Bollywood. The performances were horrible. Even Boman Irani, who always manages to shine, goes completely OTT as the villain. The soundtrack is not memorable either. And in spite trying hard, the female leads don't manage to be "sexy". Vivek Oberoi is capable of far better projects while Fardeen Khan seems to be stuck in similar fare for the time being. But this monstrosity is even beneath his limited capabilities as an actor. Esha Deol and Amrita Rao are horrible in badly written cliché roles. It's high time for Indra Kumar to hang up his directorial hat. Hope he never directs another eyesore like this. Future of Hindi movies are in better hands now. To sum it up, stay far away from waste of celluloid.


After the reasonably successful MASTI which was tad better Inder Kumar returned again with a comedy PYAARE MOHAN based on the Hollywood film SEE NO EVIL, HEAR NO EVIL

The film reminds you of HUM HAI KAMAAL KE(1994) where Kader and Anupam play the blind and deaf

This movie is a tedious exercise

The film has jokes of such nonsense that you don't feel like laughing like Snehal Dabi's head getting stuck in the back of the horse and all those type comedies which we don't laugh at now but mock

The film starts off in a clichéd manner and some scenes are funny sadly such moments don't last long as the story never moves in this half even the comedy gets boring The twist is well handled and the second half becomes an action film where the blind guy and the deaf go to rescue the heroines and we have all OTT chase scenes and fight scenes

Direction by Inder Kumar is bad Music is okay, one song stands out I LOVE YOU MY ANGEL

Vivek is awful in the comic scenes, his timing is very bad and is okay in serious scenes For some reason he keeps doing comedy and ruined his career Fardeen Khan is tad better but too wooden Amongst the rest Esha and Amrita are the heroines Boman Irani annoys here Snehal Dabbi is okay


Pyare Mohan can be safely included in the blacklist of one of the worst-ever films made by mankind. The film, one of the many handicapped-people flicks that arose after the phenomenal success of Black is makes a mockery of the handicapped fraternity. Vivek Oberoi and Fardeen Khan are mere caricatures of handicapped people. While Black portrayed the poignancy and emotions of a handicapped woman and gave us a glimpse of her world, Pyare Mohan shows two desperado-like monkeys who have no qualms about being handicapped and bash up half of the world to protect their love interests. Anu Malik's music is fair enough. Vivek Oberoi who made a promising start with Saathiya is sadly losing his balls quickly in Hindi cinema. Fardeen Khan was never an acceptable actor and deserves to be banned from the film industry. Amrita Rao and Esha Deol are just pretty damsels in distress having nightmarish times in Thialnd with no one to save them - except for the afore-mentioned desperados. Boman Irani, as the villainous Don Toni, is somewhat acceptable. Avoid the film if possible.


I'm a big fan of movies that make you think. I'm still thinking long and hard about this one, fully seven minutes after the credits have rolled. What's really confounding my neurons is the attempt to fathom the relevance to the plot of the naked girlie fondling her slick oily body, made extra-tacky by being filmed on cheap video. This happens three times and I was certain it would be explained in the end. I put my trust in the film-makers that this lurid attempt to lure viewers would be justified. It was not.

The movie has to be the most apathetic I've come across in the genre. The sets look like a cross between a 1970s Dr Who set and someone's ill-formed idea of a sponge-painted living room. The lighting is unimaginative (if your sets are going to be that bad, at least film them in semi-darkness to hide the plasterboard and create some ambiance). Of the abducted quartet, the girl stands out as being particularly lame, but none of them is given a personality. The aliens' plans for world domination are just plain silly - all they need is a birth control pill and their problems are solved. Most of the movie consists of people running down corridors. Yes, it really is that exciting. The "ray gun" special effect is ... curious, to say the least (what use is a weapon that takes a 15-second concentrated blast to kill, and even then the guy comes back for more?). The script is like a bad episode of The A-Team, and the ladies' hairstyles come from the same era, so they look like school teachers instead of an advance team of murderous alien invaders. When we finally get to see what the aliens really look like, they're in suspended animation and never even get out of their boxes. The resolution of the story - traitor alien simply has a few words with invading fleet commander and without a second thought he heads home - is truly the sign of a writer who's never had an idea more complex than a Saturday morning cartoon (I mean the bad ones with no plot, action, or characterization) in his or her life.

But seriously, what is with the naked chick?! Was it really just so they could justify putting flesh on the DVD cover to boost sales?


This thing was bad. Really bad. I mean, low budget can sometimes be very inspiring, but not this. The story was so off-the-shelf, the alien's behaviour so illogical, the characters so clichéed. I found nothing good in it. And I did try.


The Christmas Secret was touted as a wonderful film, but I was truly disappointed. They even sold VHS and DVD copies of the film when it was over, which leads me to think the producers were really proud of this project. As a screen actor myself I felt most of the performances were phoned in, although Beau Bridges, as Nick, did have a moment or two. If I were Richard Thomas I would not put this film on my otherwise fine resume. It was an embarrassment. I had been a fan since his Waltons days, but have found myself untempted to watch any of his subsequent work, so poor was this offering.

In defence of the actors, the directing was stilted, mechanical, and thoroughly amateurish.

I hope this is not considered a spiteful review and negative assumptions made about my qualifications as a critic. I turned the movie on because it had a good cast and I was prepared to enjoy the film. However I would challenge any one out there to watch this film and not wish for their money back, even though it was on T.V.


THIS REVIEW IS MOSTLY ALL SPOILERS. IF YOU PLAN ON ENJOYING THIS FILM, DON'T READ THIS REVIEW.

 That's the problem with kids TV nowadays. It's all so patronizing and condescending. `Wow, that was fun, wasn't it?' No it wasn't. And unfortunately it seems to have permeated into children films as well. And that is what 'Flight of the Reindeer' is all about. Admittedly I haven't seen 'Flight of the Reindeer' in a few years so I might be hazy on some points, but I remember being thoroughly unimpressed with it at the time.

 Essentially, the story follows a lecturer who is given a book for Christmas. Now, the lecturer is an esteemed scientist on the flying habits of some animal. I think it was bullfrogs. Anyway, through this book, Mr Lecturer / family man learns that reindeer can fly in exactly the same way as bullfrogs. Apparently this book was written by a scientist many hundreds of years ago who disappeared in the North Pole. Now, if it were me I would have thrown the book out the nearest window. Flying bullfrogs are a naturally occurring phenomenon, but flying reindeer is a fantastic and wholly unrealistic concept. But, Mr lecturer ISN'T me, so I guess that explains why he decides to fly to the north pole leaving his wife and kid at home with no idea where he's gone. Of course, things go awry and before he knows it, a flying reindeer has crashed into his private plane and he's stranded at the North Pole.

 Are you still following this? Good.

 His family, of course, are devastated. I would be too, I mean, what a suck-tacular Christmas. Elsewhere, Mr lecturer finds himself in a hidden town at the North Pole inhabited by midgets and one tyrannical figure who dresses only in red and white. Rather than try to escape immediately, as I would have done, he greets everyone there with open arms. This hidden civilization of midget monsters, and he greets them with open arms. Oooo-kayyyy. They feed him this story that they are the elves of Santa Claus and they spend all year round making toys for kids they have no idea exist. And Mr lecturer accepts all this. He even accepts that Santa Claus is in fact the scientist who disappeared two hundred years ago or whatever. There's just one problem - they don't want him to leave. The world can't know of their secret existence. After all, before they'd know it there'd be a McDonalds and a Starbucks on every street corner.

 Still with me?

Now, Mr nice guy's family find the book and assume he's gone to the North Pole. Boy, wouldn't they be embarrassed if they found out he'd just gone for a brisk walk? Before the audience knows it, they're jetting off to spend a Christmas in the most authentic winter wonderland on the planet. Meanwhile, Mr lecturer gets sick of all the uppity midgets and decides to leave. I can't remember exactly, but I do recall him holding Santa Claus to gunpoint. A fire fight ensues when the midgets attack and he manages to escape via Santa's sleigh. With Santa hot on his heels and with bloodlust in his eyes, Mr Whatever, through some marvellous co-incidence, finds himself flying alongside his family's plane that is looking for him. So he jumps on to their plane, the planes flies back and everyone lives happily ever after.

 The fact is, there have been some shocking films made in the name of Christmas over the years but because they feature that festive charm they get away with it. And it's that charm that is utterly devoid from 'Flight of the Reindeer' There isn't much wrong with it; nothing which insults the intelligence (well, obviously there IS, but it's a kids film and thus can get away with such things) or anything particularly offensive, but the problem is there is nothing much right about it either. It just doesn't FEEL Christmassy. And for a film that is all about Christmas, that it a pretty major flaw. But hey, I don't think 'Flight of the Reindeer's target audience mind about that? Why should they? They're all so doped up on sedatives they probably couldn't spell `Christmas'

 I give it three out of ten. If it was a TV-Movie then I'd add another two stars onto it. We all know how bad they can get.


If you want to watch a real 'quality' movie get hold of The Eden Formula. This wondrous film must have cost all of $50 to make. It features a wafer thin script, pathetically bad sets, lighting and camera work, and a stop motion, paper-mache monster that is utterly laughable (it looks like they sometimes used a guy in a rubber suit and/or a glove puppet for the monster - but all were equally dreadful).

The actors all speak their lines as though they've never seen them before and are reading off a teleprompter. The special effects are way beyond lousy. And the only sad thing is that they dropped the really nifty original title 'Tyranasaurus Wrecks' which sums up exactly what you get for the full 90 minutes.

This is what happens when you scrape the bottom of the barrel so hard you break through to the crud that lies underneath.

I loved every minute of it.


My first opinions on this movie were of course bad.I was expecting a horrible, crappy acting, bad entertainment, ridiculous special effects movie.What I got was actually not that bad.The special effects were absolutely horrible, but I found the movie itself quite interesting, and the script was actually pretty good and decent.The acting wasn't THAT bad, and overall I had fun watching this movie.It's still a pretty bad film, but it's not completely worthless like I thought it was going to be, and I'm pleased to know that this movie managed to wow me, even when it wasn't that good.Overall, it's a film that should be avoided, but to me it wasn't as bad as I was expecting it to be.


I got this as a turkey movie and was I not disappointed.

Acting - overall even though many have been in other movies it is clear that they had to work hard to act this bad so constantly over this entire movie with out accidentally letting slip some degree of acting.

Plot - being generous I could say that the scriptwriter did originally start with a plot but but did his best to ignore it. the plot broke down faster then a Chinese knock off computer

Scrip - now that was an abomination of nature. it failed to flow with any rhyme or reason. the majority of the lines by the characters were at best pathetic to imbecilic. the script worked hard to make sure that no character managed to get to be considered memorable. I have watched other movies where the extras were more interesting and memorable.

Special effects - ROTFLMAO!!!!! They were short bus special

Directing - until you can come up with your own directing ability copy the style of your favorite directer otherwise you will only make failures like this.

It is good to know that your friends/family have been giving you 10 stars for this movie


You ever get that itch to just kill an hour or two doing chores and watching a movie so bad it defies reason? Well, out renting movies one weekend i see the box art for this one and see the T-Rex. Knowing full well that the dinosaur on the package was the T-Rex from Jurassic Park, I KNEW I had to rent this just cause I was in the mood for a bad movie.

I was not disappointed in the least.

Mad scientists, secret formulas, a company more concerned about its fortune and shareholders than lives, and of course, a big, poorly animated, sock-puppet T-Rex. Is it me our through out the movie was there scenes clearly spliced from other movies? Not to mention the Rex's hungry is never satisfied...ever. How he has hungry is beyond me because he actually doesn't have an throat (Really if you look down his mouth when he roars, it's solid...like a toy or something). Now, I like watching incredibly bad B-Movies from time to time because it reminds me how much better a blockbuster movie is. This one was hilarious. I'm not even sure if this was supposed to be a thriller or a comedy, because there are scenes where, make no mistake, you will laugh.

Do I blame the movie's budget...yes, but the acting didn't help either. OK, Tony Todd was actually pretty good, as for some of the female roles...when you cry shouldn't "tears" come out? Meh, I am not going to be angry at this movie, i knew what i was getting into and if you're looking for a bad movie to watch with friends, here's what I recommend: Watch this movie, then immediately watch Jurassic Park and then Lost World back to back. You will be writing Mr. Spielberg thank you letters the next day.


I gave this movie a single star only because it was impossible to give it less.

Scientists have developed a formula for replicating any organism. In their lab(a run down warehouse in L.A.), they create a T-Rex. A group of industrial spies break in to steal the formula and the remainder of the film is one endless foot chase.

Of course the T-Rex(a rubber puppet)gets loose and commences to wipe out the cast. It has the amazing ability to sneak up within 2 or 3 feet of someone without them noticing and then promptly bites their head off.

One cast member escapes in a police car and spends the remainder of the film driving aimlessly through the city. She is of such superior mental ability that she can't even operate the radio. She never makes any attempt to drive to a substation or a donut shop and appears hopelessly lost.

The T-Rex wreaks havoc throughout the city, there are blazing gun battles and buildings(cardboard mock-ups)blowing up, but a single police car, or the army, nor anyone else ever shows up. Such activity must be commonplace in Los Angeles.

We can only hope that a sequel isn't planned.


This film is so unbelievable; - the whole premise is bunkum; the fact that a serial killer (vampire or otherwise) could fly around untraced and kill as many people as the film implies is laughable. The vampire himself would not look out of place in a Bela Lugosi film. Most of the acting is so wooden the actors should be treated for dry rot. I await the day when someone makes a decent film from a Steven King novel (with the exception, possibly, of Stand by Me). This film suffers from what most Stephen King films do - lack of money used for the "special" effects, poor actors, appalling characterisation and dialogue. This film is cheap, tacky and fails in everything it tries to do.


Would have better strengthened considerably by making it as a

50 minute episode of the Outer Limits. Too much superfluous material and stuff like the chief bad guy looking like he'd escaped from The Phantom of the Opera didn't help. The whole 'Night of the Living Dead' sequence was extremely silly and quite unnecessary. After all, if the dead were to punish anyone for their sins, now remind me exactly who was killing everyone again?


This is just short of a full blown gore fest based on a Stephen King story. Two tabloid reporters, one seasoned(Miguel Ferrer)and one not so accomplished(Julie Entwisle), begin to believe that a serial killer(Michael H. Moss) may actually be a vampire. Stranger than odd is this modern day blood sucker does not wing his way naturally, but by way of a black Cessna he seeks his victims. The gore actually gets gruesome as the film nears its stupid finale. Keep in mind that Mr. King had nothing to do with this film. I do admit it is a bit scary in the wee hours of the night.


SPOILERS All too often, Hollywood's Shakespeare adaptations entertaining pieces of cinema. Beautifully shot they are well performed and faithful to the text. Films including Branagh's "Henry V" and 1993's "Much Ado About Nothing" are powerful pieces of work. Watching "Love's Labour's Lost" therefore, it's such a huge disappointment for expectation to be so hideously thrown to waste. Sadly "Love's Labour's Lost" is awful! The King of Navarre (Alessandro Nivola) and his friends have forsaken drink and women for three years to focus on their studies. Plans begin to fall apart however when the enigmatic Princess of France (Alicia Silverstone) and her entourage arrive. Soon love is in the air and philosophy is off the Prince's mind.

From the start, you realise that this film is not quite Shakespeare. Cleverly relocated into a 1930s musical by Ken Branagh, the plot is still there and the script remains, but now it has been sacrificed in favour of dire musical taste. Classics like "The Way You Look Tonight", "Let's Face The Music and Dance", "I'm in Heaven" are all destroyed by weak singing and a strong feel that they just don't belong here.

Aside from weak singing, we are also treated to an increasingly large number of awkward performances by regular stars. Ken Branagh and friends might enjoy making this film, but they provide us with a stomach turning collection of roles.

The main eight actors (four men & four women) are all equally dire, and the only positive on their behalf is a vast improvement on the truly dreadful Timothy Spall.

In fact, only one individual leaves the film worthy of any praise and that's the consistently magnificent Nathan Lane. Lane has proved over the years that he is a comedy genius and in this feature he once again adds an air of humour to the jester Costard.

There's little else to be said really. "Love's Labour's Lost" deserves mild praise for Branagh's original take on an old tale. Unfortunately though, that's where the positives end. Weakly acted, performed, sang and constructed, "Love's Labour's Lost" is perhaps the weakest Shakespeare adaptation of the last forty years. It should be avoided like the plague and should never have been made. A poor, disappointing choice by Branagh and here's hoping his next effort is better.


This self-indulgent mess may have put the kibosh on Mr. Branagh's career as an adapter of Shakespeare for the cinema. (Released 4 years ago; not a peep of an adaptation since.) I just finished watching this on cable -- holy God, it's terrible.

I agree with the sentiment of a reviewer below who said that reviewing something so obviously and sadly awful is an ungenerous act that comes across as shrill. That being said, I'll take the risk, if only because *Love's Labour's Lost* is the perfect reward for those who overrated Mr. Branagh's directorial abilities in the past. Branagh has always been a pretty lousy director: grindingly literal-minded; star-struck; unforgivably ungenerous to his fellow actors (he loves his American stars, but loves himself more, making damn sure that he gets all the good lines).

Along those lines, the sad fact remains that *Love's Labour's Lost* is scarcely worse than the interminable, ghastly, bloated *Hamlet* from 1996. In fact, this film may be preferable, if only because it's about 1/3 the length. Branagh decided it would be a good idea to update this bad early work of Shakespeare's to the milieu of Cole Porter, George Gershwin, Fred Astaire, yada yada. So he sets the thing in 1939, leaves about an eighth of the text intact in favor of egregious interpretations of Thirties' standards (wait till you see the actors heaved up on wires toward the ceiling during "I'm In Heaven"), and casts actors not known for their dancing or singing (himself included). The result is a disaster so surreal that one is left dumbfounded that they just didn't call a horrified stop to the whole thing after looking at the first dailies. I don't even blame the cast. To paraphrase Hamlet, "The screenplay's the thing!" NO ONE could possibly come off well in this hodge-podge: the illustrious RSC alumni fare no better than Alicia Silverstone. Who could possibly act in this thing?

Branagh's first mistake was in thinking that *Love's Labour's Lost* was a play worth filming. Trust me, it isn't. It's an anomaly in the Bard's canon, written expressly for an educated coterie of courtiers -- NOT the usual audience for which he wrote. Hence, there's a lot of precious (and TEDIOUS!) word-play, references to contemporary scholastic nonsense, parodies of Lyly's *Euphues* . . . in other words, hardly the sort of material to appeal to a broad audience. Hell, it doesn't appeal to an audience already predisposed to Shakespearean comedy. The play cannot be staged without drastically cutting the text and desperately "updating" it with any gimmick that comes to hand. Which begs the question, Why bother?

Branagh's second mistake was in thinking that Shakespeare's cream-pie of a play could be served with a side-order of Gershwin's marmalade. Clearly the idea, or hope, was to make an unintelligible Elizabethan exercise palatable for modern audiences by administering nostalgic American pop culture down their throats at the same time. But again, this begs the question, Why bother?


I think this is one of the weakest of the Kenneth Branagh Shakespearian works. After such great efforts as Much Ado About Nothing, etc. I thought this was poor. The cast was weaker (Alicia Silverstone, Nivoli, McElhone???) but my biggest gripe was that they messed with the Bard's work and cut out some of the play to put in the musical/dance sequences.

You just don't do Shakespeare and then mess with the play. Sorry, but that is just wrong. I love some Cole Porter just like the next person, but jeez, don't mess with the Shakespeare. Skip this and watch "Prospero's Books" if you want to see a brilliant Shakespearean adaptation of the Tempest.


I've read comments that you shouldn't watch this film if you're looking for stirring Shakespearian dialogue. This is true, unfortunately, because all the stirring dialogue, this wonderful play contains, has been cut, and replaced with songs. I've read this play, and recently was lucky enough to see it performed, at it remains one of my favourite Shakespearian Comedies, but this movie seems to take all that I like about it away. The Princess, though no doubt doing what she was directed to do, had no regal bearing, and all the girls seemed to lose the cleverness of their characters - also affected by unwise cuts, which not only took away the female characters already sparse dialogue, but took comments out of context - it was a little unnerving to hear the Princess proclaim; "We are wise girls to mock our lovers so!", when mocking had not taken place at all. The news reels throughout the film also disrupted the flow, and took away many excellent scenes, as they showed the information in the scenes after them, and were in modern phrasing. In conclusion, an excellent play, ruined by an odd concept, and unwise cuts. Kenneth, I usually love what you do. What were you thinking?


Kenneth Branagh attempts to turn William Shakspeare's obscure, rarely-produced comedy into a 1930s-era musical, with the result being both bad Shakespeare and bad musical comedy as the actors are rarely adept at one or the other of the two styles and in some cases flounder badly in both. Particularly painful is Nathan Lane, who seems to be under the impression that he is absolutely hysterical as Costard but is badly mistaken, and Alicia Silverstone who handles the Shakespearean language with all the authority of a teenaged Valley Girl who is reading the script aloud in her middle school English class.

The musical numbers are staged with the expertise of a high school production of "Dames at Sea," leaving the cast looking awkward and amateurish while singing and dancing, with the lone exception being Adrian Lester who proves himself a splendid song and dance man. The only other saving grace of the film are Natascha McElhone and Emily Mortimer's contribution as eye candy, but they have given far better performances than in this film and you'd be wise to check out some of the other titles in their filmographies and gives this witless mess a pass.


I do get irritated with modern adaptations of Shakespeare when the director can't make his mind up whether to use the original or to update it. If it's using the original words in an updated setting, that's particularly tricky if set in the 20th or 21st century although it can work OK in period styles, eg the Trevor Nunn Twelfth Night set late Victorian very effectively. It could work with the 30's setting if only there had been far less of the song and dance and far more of Shakespeare's text. Unfortunately, it just ends up being a pretty trivial though very pleasant show.

Another problem is Branagh himself. I agree he's far too old to play one of the students but more important, he's such an experienced Shakespearean actor that in spite of all his efforts to be just another student, his strength of acting shows all the time. Of course he should have played the King - no problem in having a mature student King surrounded by younger students. Instead we had a pleasant but unimposing actor for the King, thus an unimposing so-called King with no Kingly attributes.

The amount of song and dance, which I found tedious in spite of the nice songs and pleasant enough dancing, unfortunately meant the great Shakespearean dialogue had to be cut down drastically. So the whole thing ends up a trivial and mild confection, and I got very bored, including with the comic turns, and was glad when it ended. Branagh has not done Shakespeare justice in this production.

Accolades however to Richard Briers and Geraldine McEwan, absolutely splendid as the older couple.


I am a Shakespeare fan, and I can appreciate what Ken Branagh has done to bring Shakespeare back for a new generation of viewers. However, this movie falls short of conveying the overall intentions of the play with the ridiculous musical sequences. Add that with Alicia Silverstone's stumbling over the dialogue (reminiscent of Keanu Reeves in Much Ado About Nothing) and other poorly cast roles, it all equals an excruciating endurance of viewing.


"Carriers" follows the exploits of two guys and two gals in a stolen Mercedes with the words road warrior on the hood hightailing it down the highway for the beach with surfboards strapped to the top of their car. Brian (Chris Pine of "Star Trek") is driving and his girlfriend Bobby (Piper Perabo of "Coyote Ugly")has shotgun, while Brian's younger brother, Danny (Lou Taylor Pucci of "Fanboys") and his friend--not exactly girlfriend--Kate (Emily VanCamp of "The Ring 2") occupy the backseat. This quartet of twentysomething characters are living in a nightmare. Apparently, a viral pandemic--which co-directors & co-scenarists Alex Pastor and David Pastor tell us absolutely nothing about--has devastated America. Naturally, the lack of exposition shaves off at least fifteen minutes that would have slowed down this cynical melodrama about how humans degenerate in a crisis and become their own worst enemies.

This lethal virus gives you the shingles and then you bleed and die. Most everybody runs around wearing those white masks strapped to their nose and mouth by a thin rubber band. Initially, this foursome encounters a desperate father, Frank (Christopher Meloni of "Runaway Bride"),and his cute little daughter Jodie (Kiernan Shipka of "Land of the Lost") blocking the highway with their SUV. Brian swerves around Frank when he tries to waylay them, but in the process, the oil pan in their Mercedes ruptures and they wind up on foot. Reluctantly, they hitch a ride with Frank after they seal Jodie up in the rear of the SUV. She wears a mask over her nose and mouth and it is speckled with blood. Frank has heard that doctors are curing ailing people at a hospital and they head to it. Sadly, somebody has lied to Frank. The hospital physician is giving the last couple of kids some Kool-Aid that will put them out of their misery. The cure did not improve their condition. Everybody else in town is dead. Kate tries without success to get a dial tone on every phone. Frank realizes that there is no hope for his daughter and he lets the heroic quartet appropriate his SUV and take off.

Indeed, "Carriers" qualifies as a relentlessly depressing movie about the effects of a pandemic on four sympathetic people who degenerate into homicidal murderers to protect themselves. They reach a country club and frolic around on a golf course until another four show up in suits and masks with pump-action shotguns. Incredibly, our protagonists manage to escape without getting shot, but Brian has a scare when he almost falls into the water with a floating corpse. Eventually, they discover that one of them has become infected. Later, as they are about to run out of gas, Brian blocks the highway like Frank did at the outset. Danny tries to stop a pair of older Christian women driving the car. Danny lies that his pregnant wife is about to give birth and he needs their help. Brian throws caution to the wind and blasts away at the ladies with his automatic pistol when they refuse to help them. Brian catches a slug in the leg from the passenger, but he kills her.

No,"Carriers" is not a beer & pizza movie that you can either laugh off or laugh with because the humor is virtually non-existent. By the end of this 84-minute movie, our heroes have turned into villains who only care only for themselves and their plight. Chris Pine makes quite an impression as fun-loving Brian and his energetic performance is the only reason to hang with this hokum, while the only other well-known actress, Piper Perabo, is relegated to an inconsequential girlfriend role. As Bobby, she makes tragic the mistake of showing compassion to a dying little girl and pays an awful price. It is a testament to Pine's performance that he can change his character to the point of putting himself before others. Essentially, Pine has the only role that gives him the ability to pull a one-eighty from happy-go-lucky guy to heartless guy.

The two directors are Spanish brothers, and they never let the momentum flag. Since there is no relief in sight, "Carriers" sinks into predictability. "Irréversible" cinematographer Benoît Debie does a fantastic job with his widescreen lensing and as unsavory as this road trip becomes, Debie makes it look like a dynamic film. Aside from the lack of a happy ending or closure in any sense of the word, "Carriers" suffers because it is so horribly cynical. The scene when the German shepherd attacks Danny conjures up the most suspense, but even it could have been improved. Unfortunately, the Pastor brothers do not scare up either much tension or suspense. By fade-out, you really don't care what happens to anybody.