Everyone does things that they later regret. Things that they wish they could blame on drugs or alien possession. Things that although seem rational at the time, later reveal themselves to be engraved invitations for suffering and endless recriminations of stupidity.

For some people it is signing the note for the new Hummer, for others it is picking up a homicidal hitchhiker, for still others it is sending their bank account information to third world millionaires mysteriously strapped for cash.

For me it was a film.

D-War: Dragon Wars In hindsight, I should have guessed how environmentally friendly and thoroughly recycled this movie would turn out to be from its stuttered and repeating title. But with my willing suspension of disbelief intact, and a naive faith stemming from the cool looking poster in the lobby, I really wanted this film to work. Sadly, by the time the old man in the pawnshop explained the entire backstory, fifteen minutes into the picture, I had the sudden, sinking revelation that comes from knowing every plot point of a still unseen film. And worse: I knew just how badly every point would all suck.

Let me be perfectly clear here, the English language lacks sufficient nuance and depth in the field of ultimate evil to properly describe just how bad this film really is.

As for knowing all the twists of movie, I was wrong. In the spirit of the old Godzilla films, whose scales this one is not worthy to fill, it conveniently sprouted extra sub-plots every time the main characters were threatened by the specter of meaningful dialogue.

It was infested with close calls, miraculous escapes, and concentrated deposits of poorly explained angst.

This film is what would happen if you gave the produces of the Mighty Morphing Power Rangers access to the national defense budget. And lots of liquor.

Let me try to explain.

Imagine you could get a hold of all the coolest-looking set pieces from successful action movies of the last decade: First take the rasta-talking army of amphibians from Star Wars Episode One and remove their Prozac until they are ready to club Navy Seals.

Next, take close approximations of Kira Knightly and Tom Cruise (You can even call him Ethan as a "subtle" nod to the Mission Impossible franchise.) and give them lots of film noir narration, so no one get confused while trying to follow the wading-pool depths of their thoughts.

Finally add a raspy-voiced villain in pointy armor worthy of a Lord of the Rings yardsale and a couple of giant cobras, angry at having their scenes deleted from latest edition of King Kong, and lay them all out in no particular order in modern day Los Angeles.

Now run to the drugstore to find something for your sudden migraine. When you return, puree these ingredients until any overlooked hint of originality is dissolved into a homogenized mass of cheese and serve semi-gelatinous.

At several points during this picture, I found myself saying out loud, "Make the bad movie stop," and breaking into tears.

To call this a B-movie would be giving it an undeserved promotion. After summer school, and a lot of physical therapy, it might possibly pass for a C level film if you could somehow sleep through most of it.

In short, if you ever find yourself with money and brain cells to burn, and the need to punish yourself for hideous, unspoken sins against humanity, Dragon Wars might just be the film for you.


I knew it wasn't gunna work out between me and D-wars from the moment we met. First its title was lazy. D war. Like writing out Dragon was too much for them. Also... you really can't be that blatant with your title unless your Blue Monkey. Blue Monkey can do whatever the hell it wants.

The second sign of a rocky relationship between us was the story's insane progression. Here's the film, dreamy reporter guy reports on big snake tracks, flashes back to a time he and dad wandered into what must have been the competition for the store in gremlins and dreamy kid reporter finds a box that glows. Old shop keep reveals several terrible truths. That Bauraki a supposedly evil snake was cheated out of his chance to be a god. tells the kid that he's a reincarnated warrior and that somewhere in LA is his reincarnated lover and gives him a junk piece of jewelry. Shop keep also reveals that despite his obvious whiteness he's a 500 year old Asian.

fifteen years later dreamy reporter remembers this perfectly and starts acting half crazy trying to find this random girl. cgi hijinks follow and in the last ten minutes my brain melts out of my nose. Why? Continue on dear reader if you have the Balls.

so Sarah, the reincarnated lover, has her own flashbacks. I have the benefit of having an Asian best friend and in the scene where she starts to freak out and make a bunch of posters with Asian characters on them he tells me that whoever made this movie has no idea what their doing. Its a Korean legend and she's reincarnated from a Korean princess but everything is in Chinese. Later that night her dragon tat starts to hurt, she calls the police cause it looks like she's having a heart attack. See, in this mixed up crazy world they apparently handle heart attacks differently because the next time we see her she's locked in her room with a guard outside and a nurse claims she's crazy. I have a new phobia now, and its that if i'm ever in trouble the first responders will just assume i'm crazy.

I have another point of contention with my harsh mistress, Dwar. There is a scene when Patrick Dempsey Jr (Dreamy Reporter) is in a café' with sassy black friend. In the scenes prior Miffed Near divinity Bauraki has killed an elephant, slithered through a suburb and killed one of Sarah's friends. See, people were afraid to come out after 9-11 happened but we must have all toughened up after that deciding coffee and pastries were worth risking our lives for. Business as usual, no way a giant snake will stop me from getting my caffeine on. If i stay inside and fear for my life the terrorists and serpentine divinities win.

After being given a satisfying dragon on Helicopter battle my cruel lover Dwar treats me to a pi$$ and vinegar filled scene to end it all with. Bauraki has a fortress of his own and its right under LA i guess. They don't really say but Dreamy Reporter and Sarah get knocked out in a car crash that would kill lesser men and when they wake up, yep dragon palace. some retarded dialog later a good dragon snake god pops out of nowhere and the snakes wrestle/make love whatever. And i'm not kidding good snake out of nowhere. Maybe you think i'm blowing it out of proportion, i'm not there is no mention of this thing in the movie then suddenly... there! Few seconds later and good dragon becomes dragon god, sets Baurki on fire, Sarah turns into a ghost and goes with Dragon-god, dreamy reporter left in the middle of nowhere roll credits... thank god

Now our relationship as rocky as it was had its good times. There was a guy that look like shredder from turtles and talked exactly like a tuskan raider from star wars. I'll call him Tuskan Shredder. He could do whatever he wanted whenever he wanted to it just could never be useful. He could walk through a wall in a scene where that wasn't helpful. He could go in your dreams when that wouldn't do any good and he could light ten random soldier guys on fire but not when it mattered. He was also allergic to touching that junk jewelry. I like him cause he was hit by a car twice in the same scene and made fantastic tuskan raider noises.

The actors for the most part were great... if great somehow meant terrible. Jason Behr, whom i thought was awesome in Roswell i slowly find out can only act one way and that's pretentious, spacey and Patrick Dempsey"ish".

The one thing i love about this filthy prostitute Dwars is its lead actor, Bauraki. That Giant snake acted his heart out. I'd dare to say that he was better at playing a cgi serpentine demi-god of evil then John Barrymore was at playing Richard the III or Hamlet. There was emotion in every scene, stealing the thunder from his lesser mortal supporting cast. When he ate an elephant i felt like no one past, present or future would ever eat an elephant with as much feeling. He was more then an actor, he was a force of nature and he put his heart and soul into every second of this cursed project. Yes damn it, my favorite actor in this film was a cgi snake. I've got the balls to admit that, do you?

Here's to hoping Bauraki get's more work and isn't type cast, that Jason Behr finds a range of emotion other then dreamy stare, and that i never have to watch Blue Monkey again.

So, D-War its over. I want my CDs back and let's just be friends


Hilarious, laugh out loud moments ... and yet not a comedy. I particularly liked the planted gag of the ambulance soaking the "filthy bum" who then shouts after them in anger "you filthy bums", I mean wow, someone's online degree in literature is paying off! The worst script imaginable, with plot introductions in an instant, ridiculous movement in the story, ZERO character development (even between the characters who meet .. it's as if they all have known and trusted each other for years) dodgy voice over with added echo effects, and plot holes.. oh God are there plot holes!! To be honest I write this not even having watched the entire thing, but I certainly expect the last 30 mins or so to not exactly enhance the already pathetic attempt in cinema ... thank god we've got a good looking lead to somewhat make us forget that the film is a load of ... well ... use you imagination for the conclusion of that particular sentence!


I'm giving this movie a 1 because there are no negative numbers in IMDb rating system. this movie was horrible. It was very badly acted, the story was poorly written, the action was unbelievable. I doubt even the Salvation Army could battle as poorly as the troops did in this film. I won't even write any plot spoilers because the movie just isn't good enough for plot spoilers. To write comments on the plot would be pointless. If I were to compare this movie, I'd have to compare it to Reign of Fire, however although I didn't like Reign of Fire either, that movie at least was better than this one.

Some of the people in the theater left before the movie was even halfway done. The only reason I didn't was because I simply didn't think to do it. I was hoping for a feast of CGI and fighting masterfully done, but that isn't what happened. The martial arts lasted all of 30 seconds and that was from an exercise routine done during the flash-back scene, very disappointing. The CGI was not done well either. One scene comes to mind. During one of the earlier tank battles, the troops are firing away at......nothing. Someone forgot to cue the animation guys on that bit of film so the street was totally devoid of bad guys. I'm also thinking the bad guy's voice was dubbed by the voice-over of Imotep from The Mummy movies. Had that same scraggly echoing thing going on. (Someone owed some royalties, here?) Since I mentioned the fight scene, I'll say yeah that might be considered a spoiler, but only to the purists I suppose.

Don't go see it, don't buy the DVD when it comes out either. You have been warned.


I am a guy, who loves guy movies... I was looking forward to seeing a dragon fighting with the army with cool special effects. All of this happened, however, this movie was the worst movie I have ever seen in my life.

The story was standard, but the portrayal of the story was terrible. The scene transitions were the worst I have ever seen. Why would you walk out to a beach to relax if your life was in danger? The serpent dragon's actions itself was very poorly written... and the serpent dragon's attack capabilities varied widely throughout the movie, several times the main characters should have died.

The director attempted to infuse a love story in the middle of the movie during the most stressful times, this movie was obviously not watched after it was made, I love movies, but had to force myself to finish watching it, thank god I did not buy this, I borrowed it from a friend.

Do not buy this, do not rent it, just watch discovery channel... much more exciting.


{rant start} I didn't want to believe them at first, but I guess this is what people are talking about when they say South Korean cinema has peaked and may even be going downhill. After the surprisingly fun and moving monster movie "Gwoemul" (aka "The Host") of 2006-- which actually succeeded in making a sharp satire out of a B-movie genre-- successive Korean blockbusters have become more and more generic, even though their budgets (mainly spent on special effects) have become more and more fantastic. Do South Korean movie-makers really want to squander all the audience and investor goodwill, which their industry has built up since the 1999 break-out film "Shiri/Swiri", by making a whole series of big budget mediocre movies like mainland China did? {rant end}

The only "reason" I can fathom for making this movie is to dupe the investors into financing the most detailed and fluid digital animation of a Korean/ East Asian-styled dragon I have seen to date, for the final scenes. Now if they had introduced that dragon at the beginning and given it more personality and purpose like in the 1996 "Dragonheart", the movie might have had a few more redeeming qualities other than having lots of digitally animated dragons. Remember "Dungeons & Dragons" in 2000? Hasn't anyone learnt that the trick is not how MUCH special effects you use, but how WELL you use it? I hope there are more (and better) Korean legends they can use, because they have just killed a lot of international interest in Korean dragon legends with the way they filmed this one.

In short, I agree with all the negative reviews gone before and wonder how Koreans felt about having their folk anthem "Arirang" being played at the very end. As a creature feature, I would have given it at least 5 stars out of 10 if the special effects or action sequences had been worth it, but I've seen many video games with better camera work and scripting (just less dragons).


This is the sorriest collection of clichés, strung together on a straight line, with no discernible plot or any decent way of acting I've seen in a long time. Canibalising scenes from Star Wars, Reign of Fire, Godzilla, Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter, it went for an all out war on the viewer intelligence. Was this movie good? It wasn't a movie at all!

Even if it doesn't go so low to actually be funny and achieve cult status as a comedy, the movie does offer some laughs. The trick is to put the copied scenes in the context of their original films. Gandalf can be funny talking Korean, the basilisk looking snake hilarious if you compare it to a kitten and the evil henchman can provide a lot of fun switching back and forth between Sauron and Jaja-bing, or whatever his name was.

Bottom line: any pleasure derived from this movie is completely dependent on the state of intoxication and imagination of the viewers, not on the director/writer. Shame on you, Shim!


My original review of this film was simply the word sh*t written 2000 times over. Although this was a very accurate critique, I felt my review should be a little more descriptive.

I will start with the lead actress; her facial expression doesn't change once in this film, she doesn't show fear, happiness or depression. Her skills in body language pretty much come down to darting her eyes left and right and looking like she don't know jack. She is an emotionless husk who I'm guessing has had too much botox. Her lack of facial expression through out the film is outmatched however by the deplorable love affair with the lead actor which seems to spring out of nowhere and has them making out on a beach and falling in love within a couple of hours of meeting one another. The lead actor, whose hair demands more attention than he did, was mediocre at best and did not once make me feel like he was genuinely in peril.

The only thing that tops the hideous acting is the directing, storyline and inaccuracies in plot. I have seen tampon ads with more structure than this movie. The is no development in character, they just seem to say and do things that I could never believe a real person would.

This film would not have been bad if it was trying to be crap on purpose like snakes on a plane but it was trying so hard to be a serious action flick that I couldn't even laugh. I believe I now have a brain tumour from watching this film and thinking up all the different ways I could have used that budget and cg team to create something far superior. If I bought this on DVD I would smash the DVD to pieces, burn it then dissolve it in hydrochloric acid for good measure. DON'T WATCH THIS FILM!


First off I'd like to point out that Sam Niel is nowhere to be seen in this film. What's a movie without Sam Niel. Did anyone see Event Horizon. D-Wars did have potential a movie about a dragon that controls lizards with rocket launchers does sound cool but sadly isn't. Nope, no Sam Niel, no good movie. I recommend taking the 5 dollars or so it takes to rent D-Wars and adding 10 to that five and buying a Sam Niel film- apparently to submit this i have to have ten lines of text so heres a list of Sam Niel movies i recommend

-jurassic park -dead calm -hunt for red October -event horizon -not jurassic park three

overall D-Wars is a pile


Whatever his name is (the writer and director) should be locked away in hopes garbage like this is never made again. This one is in a battle with some of the most awful movies of all time. Sometimes movies are bad in a way that they're actually sort of good. Not this one. This was so bad I got angry. Seriously. A drunken 10 year old could have come up with a better script. What a waste. ALL the actors were completely uninspired to work at all, the CGI was barely acceptable, the sequences of scenes were completely retarded and hurt the little bit of story there was, it's like he just decided, "I want this to happen and this to happen, but I don't care how we got there, just shoot it and put it in. Whatever, I'm going back to my trailer to pick my nose, if anyone calls for me, I'm not here." Shame on you whatever your name is. Shame on you.


I hate to even waste the time it takes to write 10 lines on this atrocity. Hyung-Rae Shim is lucky that bad film-making isn't a capital crime or he'd be put to death twice for writing and directing this disaster. I'm amazed that this film had a $75m budget, but actually glad in the sense that it was such a tremendous flop, that Shim will hopefully, never get to make another movie the rest of the life and, therefore, not waste any more of filmgoers time. I would think the actors would have gotten together and lynched him by now.

With the effects resources available to them, a great film could have been made with this budget. As usual, the failure should have been spotted at the very beginning with the terrible script and story. "Transformers" was another visual feast with a weak script, but this makes it look like "Citizen Kane".


Based on the Korean legend, unknown creatures will return and devastate the planet. Reporter Ethan Kendrick is called in to investigate the matter, and he arrives at the conclusion that a girl, stricken with a mysterious illness, named Sarah is suppose to help him. The Imoogi makes its way to Los Angeles, wreaking havoc and destruction. With the entire city under arms, will Ethan and Sarah make it in time to save the people of Los Angeles? Written by Anonymous I think he should have included the following

This is the worst movie i have ever seen the best actor in the whole thing was the CG dragon and overall it s u c k-ed i am p i s s-ed at not only with the people who made it but myself for watching save yourself the time read a book or something maybe a little Dr Seuss that should be more stimulating.

no wonder the guy is anonymous sorry for the format this site has a lot of rules this is the only way i could get this out without adding more


This movie was so very badly written. The characters had no depth. They should have never made a movie of this. My 11 yr old son could write a better screenplay then Hyung-rae Shim.

The only actor that didn't suck was the zoo guard. He was the only funny and believable one of the lot.

I love movies and try to give them the benefit of the doubt, but this one was up there on my lame list at number 2. Number 1 being Demonicus.

For those of you who actually thought this was a good movie, you are in serious need of brain surgery.

Most of the creatures in the movie weren't even dragons...so why did they call D-war?


this movie only gets a second star because i work downtown and liked seeing it destroyed. the effects were pretty good- i hear it was the most expensive Korean film ever made. being the most expensive and still absolutely horrid makes it a massive waste of money. i rented it so i won't complain too much about what i paid, but it was a couple hours that i'll never get back. plot holes abound. terrible acting all across the board. i do not recommend giving up the time to watch this movie, life is too short. if your friends want to watch this, run away. i can't stress enough how bad this film was.

where the hell did the second dragon come from? why didn't he show up sooner? how did they have rocket launchers on dinosaurs just 500 years ago?


I knew it would be, but I gave it a rent for some laughs and maybe some mindless fun. Anyone whose read a few of my reviews can see that I'm pretty easy to please. I really didn't think I'd end up feeling this negatively towards it.

The plot is about an ancient army of dragons lead by a huge serpent that will destroy the world unless some chosen heroes who inherited the responsibility can become one with a good dragon or something I don't know. It was so stupid, I didn't bother to put much effort into retaining it.

It features a really dumb story full of ridiculous moments and goofy concepts. So many of the events just felt totally random and sudden.

I assume there was studio interference or something because the biggest problem I have with the movie is the fact that the story seems like it's trying to be so grand and epic, yet everything happens so fast and goes by so quickly. I feel like I've just been hit with a million plot points and action sequences in one big ball. The film is like a punch in the face. It doesn't take much time at all to establish characters or drama. Imagine the "Lord of the Rings" trilogy in 90 minutes You could have most of the epic battle sequences, but there would be absolutely no buildup and you'd hardly care about the outcome of those battles. That was the case with Dragon Wars 90 minutes of me not giving a crap, waiting for it to be over.

Fantastic CGI with some okay directing, but horrible acting, speedy pacing, and dumb story made this very hard to enjoy on any grounds. I probably would have loved it when I was 6.


I was dreading taking my nephews to this movie, as I didn't think it was going to be well done. The kids, ages 6 and 10 were set on seeing it, so I caved. I must admit that it was not nearly as bad as I had thought, but was still a far cry from the book. The movie seemed right on with the 10 year old's understanding and sense of humor. I found that the 6 year old understood what was going on and he was presenting solutions to the issues that were taking place. I eventually had to explain that sometimes the movies don't show the best solutions to the problems because it is more fun to watch what happens if they make the "silly" or "stupid" choices.


Squeamish 11-year-old Luke Benward (as Billy "Worm Boy" Forrester) moves to a new town. At his new school, young Benward is picked on by the other boys. They put worms in his thermos. Getting his gag reflex under control, Benward tosses a worm on freckle-faced bully Adam Hicks (as Joe Guire). Benward bets he can eat 10 worms in one day - without regurgitation!

Tall, teased Hallie Kate Eisenberg (as Erika "Erk" Tansy) uses her archery skills to help Benward. Director and former SCTV writer Bob Dolman promises, "No worms were harmed in the making of this movie." In a related note, SCTV star Andrea Martin has one funny scene. "How to Eat Fried Worms" is loosely based on Thomas Rockwell's popular novel. Pre-teen kids into gross-outs should enjoy the film.

**** How to Eat Fried Worms (8/25/06) Bob Dolman ~ Luke Benward, Adam Hicks, Hallie Kate Eisenberg, Alexander Gould


I was bored, around 10pm, so I watched this movie. And I could not stop laughing. Everything was so ridiculous. The way the kids were acting like they were older than 11 just cracked me up. One of the kids had a ring, that supposedly killed people after 3 or so years. It gave me the impression that he wanted to be a gangster.

It's pretty hard to take little kids seriously, especially when it has to do with eating worms. They act like everything is such a big deal, like if Billy (the main character) doesn't eat the worms then the world will end.

This is a good movie for little kids (excluding the fact that a 5 year old says 'penis'), but not for teens or adults who don't want to waste their time.


I have to admit I did not finish this movie because it was so amazingly stupid and not worth watching. I watched it with a room full of kids, who also were not laughing at the stupid and crude humor. The director, Bob Dolman, seems to be so obsessed with sphincters and genitalia that it overrides the real story that I grew up with. THIS IS NOT A GOOD FILM FOR KIDS! Besides the fact that the content is so crude, the movie is just stupid has bad flow and has no intelligence behind it. What a waste of a perfectly good story. If you read the book when you were younger and loved it, then don't waste your time watching a movie that so badly botches it that it makes you angry. Buy your kids the book instead.


i just happened to stumble on this film channel surfing. my first reaction was, 'oh god not again!'. it's so hip to play a retard these days it has become pretentious and frankly despicable. for some reason, though, i stayed and watched it 'til the end. maybe it was my faith in the actors, hoping they'd give me something to cheer about.

and surely, ken and helena can act. also, the movie progresses into something better towards the end and actually does make a point.

helena bonham carter also surprised me with her character. jane has a mean side that she uses to keep distance and repel pity. then again she has a soft side that's just looking for love. the only thing that surprised me even more was branagh's character...this was a triumph of acting, the movie itself is nothing unique.

see if you are an acting student...if you're looking for pure entertainment you can skip this one. it's sean penn serious! oh my, that was a bit harsh it does feature a couple jokes...not for escapists though.


Spoiler!! I love Branagh, love Helena Bonham-Carter, loved them together in "Mary Shelley's Frankenstein" - but THIS -

I can understand an actor's desire to stretch, to avoid the romantic stereotype. Well, they did, but really - the script droned on, Bonham-Carter's clothes were tres chic, and the occasional speeded-up "madcap" sequence could have been an outtake from a Beatles' movie, or the old Rowan and Martin Laugh-In.

I never got the point - other commenters say the Branagh character was a dreamer. I never felt that. He was a loser, and not very bright, and certainly not endearing. The business with the bank robber disguise was merely painful to watch. Certainly not amusing.

Bonham-Carter's realistic (one supposes) attempts as realistic speech were harder to understand than the first 15 minutes of Lancashire accent in "Full Monty."

The poetic ending, with him high on a hill with her buried under the monstrosity of his airplane was too orchestrated. Was there a choir of angels, or merely a soundtrack?

Go back to the classics or something with a spine and an arc to it. Donate this to PBS.


I still don't know why I forced myself to sit through the whole thing. This "film" wasn't worth the Memorex DVD-R it was burned on; I thought I was watching the end result of a group of middle schoolers stealing their parents' camcorder. This is by far the worst movie ever made. I truly, from the bottom of my heart, want to sue Aaron Yamasato for the two hours he stole from my life.

So apparently, it's supposed to be bad on purpose; However, if you should end up in Hell and are forced to watch this 90-minute coil of doo-doo, you'll see that Yamasato is really trying hard to make an awesome flick. The actors attempt dramatic kick-ass performances comparable to Crimson Tide but come closer to The Marine.

The crap acting is just the tip of the iceberg. The camera angles are awful. The story is C-movie at best-- the plot isn't even good enough to be considered B-movie caliber. The dialogue attempts to be dynamic and witty, but is crap like everything else. Rumor has it that a hard copy of the screenplay actually attracts flies. Plus, the techno score is annoying... not because it's techno, but because it's NON-STOP. That's right, the music plays in the background THE WHOLE TIME, acting as a subliminal reminder of how bad this thing is. I don't care what the disclaimer claims, I don't buy it. BOTS was not made this bad on purpose, because it takes itself WAY too serious for what it was: a joke.

This "film" was very low-budget. But that is no excuse for its record-setting suck factor. Great films are born of substance, not budget. BOTS had neither.

Allow me to further articulate the overwhelming power of this 90-minute waste of time: if I were having a three-way with Jessica Alba and Jessica Biel in front of a TV and Blood of the Samurai came on, I'd be out of there quicker than Steven Seagal in Executive Decision.

Undoubtedly, some people will try to defend the movie. Two, maybe three. They'll say, "it's grindhouse chop-socky!" or "cheesy in a good way!" or "it's so bad, it's good!" Those people are idiots. A movie is either good, or it's bad. There's no such thing as a good bad movie. But there ARE such things as idiots that like crappy movies. Don't get me wrong; there are lots of cornball not-to-be-taken-seriously movies out there that are enjoyable and entertaining. Slither is one. BOTS is not.

This suckfest runs about an hour and a half, and in my humble opinion, it's 90 minutes too long. The best thing about this "film" is the DVD cover, so next time you're near the Wal-Mart DVD bargain bin, take a look at it-- DON'T TOUCH IT, just look-- and quietly walk away.


I have no clue as to what this was shot on but you can definitely tell that they had no budget. Bad acting, horrible cinematography, and lame plot and some decent special effects do not make a good movie. The WWF style cinemtography will make you cry...where's the tripod?! The filmakers aimed high, but sorely missed their mark.


Trash/bad movies usually ain't bad because I will find them enjoyable. This one is so bad that I am out of words to describe it - its below "bad". There is an instruction in the beginning of the film that tell you what to do during the movie. Needless to say, the instruction and a dozen of beer couldn't help me seat through the entire film. One tagliner compares this one to KILLBILL which is certainly unthinkable and an insult to our intelligent. Obviously. this tagliner had a plan to tempt you into buying this DVD.

If you are considering renting this one, put it down! If you are thinking of buying, Dont think! If you unlucky to have this dvd, dont play it, throw it in trash bin immediately.


There are no spoilers in this review. There's nothing to spoil.

No plot, nothing; most clip shows at least try to tie the clips into the plot by some tenuous stretch, but this didn't even do that. Clips, three lines to lead into the next interminable sequence of dull clips... OK, so perhaps they were short on production time, but they'd have been better off skipping this episode entirely. What a waste of time.

I'm not sure how this got made, in fact. Scrubs is usually much better at subverting tropes, but somehow this got through....

Thank heavens they were back on form by the next episode.


The only reason I am commenting is because I finally figured out why Dr. Cox was bald. Although we probably all realized it at the same time this week, Dr. Cox is bald because they showed these episodes in a different order than they filmed them. The latest episode when our favorite grumpy, Jesus-loving Nurse Roberts dies Dr. Cox shaves his head. The must have showed them out of order for some odd reason and forgot they slipped up the continuity. For shame, Scrubs. They've made mistakes like this before. I remember when Elliot is trying to date Scott Foley and her hair is wet 2 seconds before water hits her. I try not to notice these things, but my favorite show needs to step it up.


I thought it was not the best re-cap episode I've every seen (though my viewing partner handed me a tissue in anticipation of the Brendan Fraser moment...*sigh*). It was nice to see Cox outside of the incessantly brittle "Coxism State" he is in these days, if only for brief moments. I also enjoyed trying to place the episodes included by the length of the character's hair (or height, in case of JD) and the youthfulness of the earliest episodes. I can also see how Zach might be well on the way to a very Chevy Chase/or is that Matthew Perry? prat-fall induced chemical slide (already acknowledged on Conan). A little side note, the song (now stuck in my head) from the janitor-induced dance montage was "Diner" by Martin Sexton.


But, lets face it... it got a few nostalgic sighs out of me.

The show is just so consistently great that it is allowed to have a few hiccups. I get a new season, and just power through them like I have 2-days to live. I like the idea of wrapping it up, but it was much more of an end of season episode which would explain the following:

Dr.Cox isn't supposed to be bald for a couple more episodes, only explanation I can think of is they changed the rotation of the episodes or had to re-shoot the beginning.

and that my friends, is why the hell cox is bald.

Anyways, the show is awesome...bring on the 7th season.


I debated as to whether or not I should tick the spoiler box. Since 99% of this show has probably already been seen by any follower of Scrubs it probably doesn't come under the category of a spoiler.

Clip shows. Grrr. We all knew Friends was going down the tube when they started with clip shows...and five and a half years into Scrubs they've gone and fallen down that hole.

I have to wonder if the writers just couldn't be bothered writing that week and just said to themselves "let's show the other funny stuff." It didn't work.

For starters, showing all the times that people have fallen down isn't funny when taken out of context. It's not funny to see Todd dangling by his banana hammock unless we know WHY he was dangling by his banana hammock.

Second, for what was supposed to be a compilation of JD's fantasies, one was Turk's dream, another also wasn't his fantasy, although I forget which.

And that's the problem. This episode is totally forgettable. We've seen all these things before. And the collection of clips of people dancing? Why? That's not funny.

Finally, I must admit two of my favourite Scrubs moments were shown in the last compilation...Dr. Cox realising that Ben died...and JD telling him how proud of him he is.

But even seeing those moments again didn't save the episode. The summary says it all.

Worst episode ever. Bill Lawrence, PLEASE don't let your show go the same way as Friends, keep it fresh, keep it funny...or wrap it up.


When 'My Deja Vu, My Deja Vu' aired last season, I was pleased. Scrubs, I thought, is doing something clever and unique in regards to the clip-show concept. Instead of replaying footage, they're replaying jokes in a self-aware manner, and I really enjoyed it.

I found it really unfortunate that I was wrong. One season later, they succumbed to that which almost all sitcoms inevitably do, the clip show...and it looked like it was put together by the work-experience kid. Dr Cox's shaved head shows just how lazy the editors were in putting it together, as it doesn't appear again until 'My Long Goodbye' some 4 episodes later. I can't imagine that a wig is too much effort when it comes to maintaining the continuity of what was once a well-constructed sitcom. Who knows why it was slotted there, it just seemed lazy and out of place, reminding me (largely) of episodes that have aired within the past year.

Three second clips jammed together with background music is a DVD extra for a (very) rainy day, not an episode of prime-time television.


Truly bad and easily the worst episode I have ever seen....ever.

They tried to make up for it by giving it the, 'we know we are doing this' routine. That would have been funny if it weren't for the fact that 'The Simpsons' had already done it. And it still wouldn't make up for it if they had come up with the idea in the first place.

The flashbacks took place as part of the usual character's (mainly J.D's) fantasies. The flashbacks weren't even of actual events that occurred, just compilations of say, J.D falling over or, i don't know.... Elliott falling over. If I wanted to watch a Scrubs compilation i'd go on youtube and not waste half an hour of my life.

Scrubs has ultimately fallen into the trap that most sit-coms have to, and it disappoints me, they managed to go 5 and a quarter seasons without an episode like this.

I was hoping that scrubs wouldn't have to be that kind of sit-com.

And just as a passing thought, why the hell was Dr.Cox bald?


Whoa boy.

Ever wanted to watch a documentary about a megalomaniacal jerk ruining his own life and alienating everyone around him? Well they exist, in many forms. But have you ever wanted to watch said documentary about one who didn't ultimately succeed in doing anything despite everyone's praises about how much of an artistic "genius" he is? Well you could probably just grab a camera and find someone like that in any local scene (I know they're everywhere and I don't even follow the local scene), or you could save yourself the trouble by spending money watching this tripe.

The premise is good and, honestly, it's not as if the filmmakers knew precisely where it was going considering that's one of the difficulties of doing a documentary. We are made to follow two bands, The Brian Jamestown Massacre, lead by Anton, and The Dandy Warhols, lead by Courtney. I've heard of The Dandy Warhols before watching this movie... not so the Brian Jamestown Massacre. Why? Well from this documentary's perspective, because The Brian Jamestown Massacre's intergroup dysfunction refused them the ability to really make it in the music industry. However, instead of this becoming an analysis of the two separate bands and how one was able to succeed, the focus becomes much more on Anton and his insanity.

Because, see, Anton is a "genius." Because he plays rock music. He really "understands the evolution of music"... because he plays rock music with a lot of different instruments. His music is considered "post-modern retro but the future"... because it's rock music. He wants to bring out a "revolution"... through rock music. Okay so let's face it... twenty minutes in and this is one of the stupidest kids I'd care to watch a documentary about.

The documentary itself doesn't really lend itself to showcasing any of Anton's talent, because in the nature of editing down 2000 hours of material into a quarter short of two hours we don't really have the time to focus on that. So instead we watch Anton, "the genius", the socio-maniacal loser, be a jerk for the two hours and are just told to understand that he made really great music. Whether he did or not I won't know, because its not like the documentary had enough time to prove it. What I do know is that then we're left with a story about some self-centered obnoxious twerp running around the country calling himself a God of music and doing nothing to back it up. Why even bother watching that? People like Anton don't deserve the attention they seek, the hope and admiration of all those different people, and especially a post-failure paean to lost potential. This movie plays like a two-hour rough-cut VH1 special for a reason: he goes on and on about the music, but it's all about the image and the attention. Look at the guy, look at how he dresses, look at how he acts, look at how he tries to create controversy because he can't afford marketing.

Honestly the only interesting character in this film is Joel, and that's because of anyone in this documentary, Joel is the only person who seems to have any fun. Maybe it's because he's the tambourine man. The rest of them are all "rock stars"! They deserve our attention, and admiration, and interest, and engagements! They are out there to "save rock and roll." Do you remember when The White Stripes were supposed to "save rock and roll"? Yeah, that was because of Anton, and it's "selfish of them not to mention me (Anton) as an inspiration." What a load. People like Anton are best left forgotten. This documentary explains why mainstream music is so dull--because music execs have to deal with people like Anton for a living and ultimately can only really throw their support behind someone safe and passionless. Thanks a lot, Anton. Your antics ruined music for EVERYONE you touched, whatever the opinion to the contrary is. And if people "in the know" about Anton disagree and he really was a genius, it still shows how bad this documentary is that it cuts it down that way.

--PolarisDiB


Actress Ruth Roman's real-life philanthropic gesture to help entertain troops arriving from and leaving for the Korean War at an air base near San Francisco jump-started this all-star Warner Bros. salute to patriotism and song. Many celebrities make guest appearances while a love-hate romance develops between a budding starlet and a painfully green and skinny Air Force Corporal (Ron Hagerthy, who looks like he should be delivering newspapers from his bicycle). Seems the Corporal has fooled the actress into thinking he's off to battle when actually he's part of a airplane carrier crew, flying to and from Honolulu (you'd think she'd be happy he was staying out of harm's way, but instead she acts just like most childish females in 1950s movies). Doris Day is around for the first thirty minutes or so, and her distinct laugh and plucky song numbers are most pleasant. Roman is also here, looking glamorous, while James Cagney pokes fun at his screen persona and Gordon MacRae sings in his handsome baritone. Jane Wyman sings, too, in a hospital bedside reprise following Doris Day's lead, causing one to wonder, "Did they run out of sets?" For undemanding viewers, an interesting flashback to another time and place. Still, the low-rent production and just-adequate technical aspects render "Starlift" strictly a second-biller. *1/2 from ****


It's nothing more than a weird coincidence that I decided to watch STARLIFT on the 59th anniversary of the day in June 1950 when President Truman's ordered US forces into the Korean War. STARLIFT, you see, is set largely at Travis Air Force base in California in the years when it was being used as a staging post for soldiers being shipped out to fight in Korea. But you'd need to do your own research to know this because not once during the film is the name 'Korea' mentioned. We see transport aircraft flying out fresh troops and returning with wounded soldiers but there's no mention of where these men will be fighting or getting injured. Which is kind of weird for a film designed to wave the flag and salute America's men in uniform. Released in December 1951 by Warner Brothers, STARLIFT is a very obvious effort to replicate the success of the studio's star-studded World War Two home-front morale booster "Hollywood Canteen." This 1944 crowd-pleaser told the story of two soldiers spending their last three nights of leave hanging out at the famous armed forces nightclub in LA hoping to get a date with Joan Leslie. But really it was just an excuse for Warners to trot out every star under contract, from Joan Crawford, John Garfield, and Barbara Stanwyck to Peter Lorre, Bette Davis, Sydney Greenstreet and more. STARLIFT features two Air Force soldiers hoping to meet fictional starlet Nell Wayne (a mask-like Janice Rule) and persuading a bunch of Warner Bros stars to put on a show for the departing troops. But in place of Crawford, Garfield et al the best the brothers Warner could scrape up in 1951 were Doris Day, Ruth Roman, Gordon MacRae, Virginia Mayo, Gene Nelson and Phil Harris with fleeting appearances by James Cagney, Randolph Scott, and a clearly embarrassed looking Gary Cooper. This threadbare cast, whose combined star power would struggle to illuminate a standard lamp, is perfectly matched by the crummy production values. Presumably in an effort to save money several long scenes were shot using really really bad back projection. How bad is it? You can see the join where the screen meets the floor of the soundstage! To describe STARLIFT as a sloppy, lazy and third rate movie is to do a disservice to films which are sloppy, lazy and third rate. It's just terrible. Avoid it.


This oddity in the new DORIS DAY COLLECTION doesn't really need to be included as she is only in the film for less than 30 minutes. What she does do however, is shine when she's on screen. The near plot less movie is just an excuse to showcase some Warner contract players of the day. JANCIE RULE shows promise and it's a shame she didn't become a big star. RUTH ROMAN handles the role of the "go-getter" with aplomb. Better if this was in color. The Travis Air force base locations with some rear projection work well. What's best about the movie are some wonderful musical interludes. If you enjoyed THANK YOUR LUCKY STARS and Hollywood CANTEEN you'll like this one.


Considering its pedigree, this should be a far more enjoyable film than it is. Even with a lip-smacking collection of eccentrics in the cast - what aficionado would not eagerly anticipate a movie which brings together Lemmon, Lanchester, Kovacs and Gingold? - the entire event is dully paced, drearily shot and, more often than not, witless.

Kim Novak's gifts were not essentially comic, as she went on to confirm in Kiss Me Stupid. James Stewart was a fine comedian, as he ably demonstrated in movies from ranging from The Philadelphia Story to Harvey. I think he comes out better from this mess than anyone else does. Except maybe the cat.


Chesty gringo Telly Savalas (as Frank Cooper) is a US-Mexico "Border Cop". He serves as a father figure to young immigrant Danny De La Paz (as Benny Romero), who wants Mr. Savalas to be best man at his impending wedding. Savalas is tough, but boss Eddie Albert (as Commander Moffat) may be tougher. Tough is what you need to stop smuggler Michael V. Gazzo (as Chico Suarez). Alliances may be in flux.

If you find the possibility of hearing "Kojak" and "Oliver Douglas" uttering expletives to be repulsive, you ought to steer clear of "The Border". If not, you may not have the stomach for the "realistic" cow slaughtering scene. Although it doesn't end up being worth much, Mr. De La Paz and Cecilia Camacho (as Leina) steal the show.

** The Border (1979) Tony Richardson ~ Telly Savalas, Danny De La Paz, Eddie Albert


I would like to say that unlike many of the people who disliked this film and found it impossible to understand I was fully able to understand it for what it is.. A very incoherent attempt at a plot line.

I don't like to toss this word around but in this case it fits very well. The director firstly presents the material in an extremely "arrogant" way and worse, extremely incoherently. It is incoherent in that it presents the material in a messy dislodged order, making us think that the director was too drunk to remember which scenes come first, and arrogant in that at 2 hours long they expect us, the viewer to CARE by the end of it.

I respect surrealist cinema for what it is. (creating a story around a more than real world that does not tie to real life) But there is nothing surreal about having a story placed in ordinary modern times, and a modern day earth setting, that is most importantly not able to engage the audience but furthermore, simply a dislodged series of events that barely tie together. The most accurate way to describe the experience of viewing this film is like viewing a story; perhaps even a very GOOD story as it was based on a book, but being frustrated by the fact that the camera doesn't seem to capture the necessary moments and tie together any means of coherence.

Let's compare stylistic cinema. Compare Gaspar Noe's "Seul contre tous" to this. He gave us a coherent, extremely engaging and intellectually deep story. This movie offers no intellectual study, and while it is very stylistic in it's fragmented presentation, the director has ultimately abandoned the essential art of good storytelling and all we are left with is a mess of events that barely tie in together.

Yes indeed it IS possible to make sense of things.... to a POINT. But as i said earlier the viewer will reach a stage where they simply say "Who cares." It plays out like watching a drab mundane story of a man going to a supermarket and buying groceries in uncronological order. Even with murders it is completely uninteresting and unengaging. Too many people these days will give high marks to something they are unable to understand or make sense of simply for fear of looking foolish, and in every way this film TRIES to make the viewer look foolish.

If you have too much time on your hands, then please watch this film, taking into account what I have said of it. It is a story based on a book that could have been presented in a MUCH more effective way and that is my bottom line reasoning.


Claire Denis's movies seem to fall into one of two categories: the violent and bloody or the quiet and intimate. "L'Intrus" definitely falls into the first category, but it's not so awful as "Trouble Every Day" or "J'ai pas sommeil."

Now, ever since I saw "Chocolat," I've made it a point to see every new movie Denis makes. And I have always been disappointed. "L'Intrus" was no exception. She has yet to make a movie as personal and as moving as her first one.

You get a lot of the Denis regulars: an older but still magnificent Béatrice Dalle who seems to be in the movie only to show off her full lips, the gap between her teeth, her ample cleavage, and a couple of nice coats; the black guy from "Trouble Every Day" and "J'ai pas sommeil," Grégoire Colin, and that Lithuanian or Russian girl. Michel Subor's character was interesting enough, but the camera lingered on him at such length that I got annoyed by that curly forelock of hair hanging over his forehead and was relieved when, somewhere in Korea, I think, he finally got it cut.

There was certainly some action--gruesome murders, a man's search for a son--and there may even have been a plot, but one viewing wasn't enough to figure it out, and two viewings are, I fear, out of the question. For one thing, the score was jarring and obtrusive (as in "Beau Travail"). For another, the seasons changed too abruptly, leaving you even more confused about what was going on. Oh, there were a few pretty shots, and if you liked "Friday Evening" with its shots of the folds in heavy drapes and bedsheets, you might appreciate the aesthetics of "L'Intrus." Otherwise, steer clear.

I saw this movie in French and it's possible I missed something crucial. But the dialogue in a Denis movie rarely amounts to more than five pages, double spaced and with ample margins. In "Chocolat" the silence is sublime; in "L'Intrus," it's just dull.


For the big thinkers among us, "The Intruder" is a maddeningly incoherent movie from France that gives so-called "art films" a bad name. The story is something about a bitter old coot, Louis Trebor (Michel Subor), who goes searching in Tahiti for a heart transplant, but beyond that, I have no idea who any of the people in the movie were or why they were doing what they were doing. With no coherent storyline to boast of, the movie loses us early on, though I'm perfectly willing to admit that there might be SOMEBODY out there who actually gets some deep message out of this film.

This muddled, snail-paced drama runs a full two hours and five minutes - though I seriously doubt anyone with any kind of a life will still be hanging around by the closing credits.


I'm a big fan of 50s sci-fi, but this is not one of my favorites. While the concept behind the movie was a natural vehicle for a classic teeny bopper sci-fi flick, the director counted too heavily on it to carry the movie. It's clear he was working with no money, because the entire movie is loaded with bloated dialogue that goes on and on forever. I have *never* seen so much time-killing in a movie.

There are probably less than 60 seconds of "blob footage" in the entire movie, and most of the rest of it is people engaging in a lot of poorly-written, run-on dialogue. It was fun to see Steve M. and Anita C. together, but good heavens...how could casting have thought anyone in their right mind would believe them as teenagers?


The Blob starts with one of the most bizarre theme songs ever, sung by an uncredited Burt Bacharach of all people! You really have to hear it to believe it, The Blob may be worth watching just for this song alone & my user comment summary is just a little taste of the classy lyrics... After this unnerving opening credits sequence The Blob introduces us, the viewer that is, to Steve Andrews (Steve McQueen as Steven McQueen) & his girlfriend Jane Martin (Aneta Corsaut) who are parked on their own somewhere & witness what looks like a meteorite falling to Earth in nearby woods. An old man (Olin Howland as Olin Howlin) who lives in a cabin also sees it & goes to investigate, he finds a crater & a strange football sized rock which splits open when he unwisely pokes it with a stick. Laying in the centre of the meteorite is a strange jelly like substance which sticks to the stick, if you know what I mean! It then slides up the stick & attachés itself to the old man's hand. Meanwhile Steve & Jane are quietly driving along minding their own business when the old man runs out in front of Steve's car, Steve being a decent kinda guy decides to take the old man to Dr. T. Hallan (Alden 'Stephen' Chase as Steven Chase) at the local surgery. Dr. Hallan says he doesn't know what the substance on the old man's hand is but it's getting bigger & asks Steve to go back where he found him & see if he can find out what happened. Steve agrees but doesn't come up with anything & upon returning to Dr. Hallan's surgery he witnesses the blob devouring him. The town's police, Lieutenant Dave (Earl Rowe) & the teenage hating Sergeant Jim Bert (John Benson) unsurprisingly don't believe a word of it & end up suspecting Steve & his mates Al (Anthony Franke), Tony (Robert Fields) & someone called 'Mooch' Miller (James Bonnet) of playing an elaborate practical joke on the police department. However as the blob continues to eat it's way through the town Steve sets about finding proof of it's existence & convincing the police about the threat it posses not just to their town but the entire world!

Directed Irvin S. Yeaworth Jr. & an uncredited Russell S. Doughton Jr. I was throughly disappointed by this, the original 1958 version of The Blob. The script by Kay Linaker as Kate Phillips & Theodore Simonson is an absolute bore & extremely dull not making the most of it's strongest aspects. The Blob focuses on the tiresome dramatics & conflicts between the teenagers & police, in fact the majority of The Blob is spent on Steve trying to convince the police of the blob's existence. For most of the film the blob itself almost seems inconsequential & somewhat forgotten. It only has two or three scenes for the fist hour & a bit until the less than exciting climax when the adults & teenagers have to work together to defeat the blob & have a new found appreciation of each other afterwards, yuck! Why couldn't the blob just eat the lot of 'em? No explanation is given for what the blob is or it's origins other than it came from space, how long did it take them to come up with that? The dialogue is clunky & silly as well, as are people's actions & decision making, I love the part when a nurse named Kate (Lee Paton as Lee Payton, did anyone use their real name in this thing?) is confronted by the blob, she throws some acid over it & calmly proclaims "Doctor, nothing will stop it!", how does she know 'nothing' will stop it exactly? There's no blood or violence so don't worry about that, the special effects on the blob itself aren't too bad considering but it barely has any screen time & moves very slowly, a bit like the film in general actually. The acting is terrible, McQueen is supposed to be a teenager when in reality he was 28 years old & it shows, he looks old enough to be his own dad! Same thing goes for most of the other 'teenage' cast members & everyone generally speaking are wooden & unconvincing in their roles. Technically The Blob is very basic, dark static photography, dull direction & forgettable production values. The Blob is one of those films that probably sounds good on paper & is well known as being a 'classic' but is in actual fact a huge disappointment when finally seen. This is one case when the remake The Blob (1988) is definitely better than the original. The original Blob is slow & boring & the remake isn't, the original Blob contains no blood or gore & the remake does, the original Blob has incredibly poor acting & casting decisions & the remake doesn't & the original Blob itself gets very little screen time eating only three or four people throughout the entire film & the remake features the blob all the way through & it virtually eats an entire town. The choice is an easy one, the remake every time as it's a better film in every respect. I'll give the film two stars & give that wonderful main theme song one on it's own. Definitely not the classic many seem to make out.


When a small glob of space age silly putty lands on earth it soon begins consuming earthlings and putting on weight. The only part of this senseless drivel that I enjoyed was all the cool classic cars. This dog had so many holes it could be sliced and sold for swiss cheese. This thing actually made 20 million bucks? And McQueen's salary was 3K? All were vastly overpaid. The 'monster' looked a lot like a large beanbag and the 'teens' looked as though they could have children approaching their teen-age years. And those blasts from the shotgun; sounded like a pellet rifle with a sound suppressor. The ending was pitifully trite; obviously the producers were leaving the door open for a sequel....and there were many. Thumbs down.


This is the least scary film i have ever seen. How the blob manages to eat anyone is the biggest mystery of the film. The blob moves so slowly that an o.a.p in a zimmerframe could escape it. The blob has a large slice of luck coming across a typical horror film woman who instead of running away stands still for half an hour so that she can be eaten. If you havent seen this film i recommend you do, its far too funny to be taken seriously.


Do we really need any more narcissistic garbage on the Baby Boomer generation? Technically, I am a Boomer, though at the time when all the "idealistic youths" of the '60s were reading Marx, burning their draft cards, and generally prolonging a war which destroyed tens of thousands of lives; I was still in grade school. But I remember them well, and 9 out of 10 were just moronic fools, who would believe anything as long as it was destructive.

This is just another excercise in self-importance from the kids who never really grew up.


Is there any other time period that has been so exhaustively covered by television (or the media in general) as the 1960s? No. And do we really need yet another trip through that turbulent time? Not really. But if we must have one, does it have to be as shallow as "The '60s"?

I like to think that co-writers Bill Couturie and Robert Greenfield had more in mind for this two-part miniseries than what ultimately resulted, especially given Couturie's involvement in the superb HBO movie "Dear America: Letters Home From Vietnam" which utilized little original music and no original footage, letting the sights and sounds of the time speak for themselves. This presentation intercuts file footage with the dramatic production, but it doesn't do anyone any favours by trying to do too much in too little time; like so many of its ilk, it's seen from the point of view of one family. But the children of the family seem to be involved tangentially with almost every major event of the '60s (it's amazing that one of them doesn't go to the Rolling Stones gig at Altamont), making it seem less like a period drama and more like a Cliff Notes version of the decade.

The makers rush through it so much that there's little or no time to give the characters any character, with the stick figures called our protagonists off screen for ages at a time - the children's father is especially clichéd - and then when they're back on BLAMMO! it's something else. Garry Trudeau could teach the filmmakers a thing or two about doing this kind of thing properly. In fairness, Jerry O'Connell, Jordana Brewster, Jeremy Sisto, Julia Stiles and Charles S. Dutton give their material the old college try, but they're wasted (especially the latter two); it's undeniably good to see David Alan Grier in a rare straight role as activist Fred Hampton, and Rosanna Arquette (in an uncredited cameo in part 2) is always welcome.

What isn't welcome is how "The '60s" drowns the soundtrack with so many period songs that it ultimately reduces its already minimal effect (and this may well be the only time an American TV presentation about post-60s America never mentions the British Invasion - no Beatles, no Rolling Stones... then again, there's only so much tunes you can shoehorn into a soundtrack album, right?). Capping its surface-skimming approach to both the time and the plot with an almost out-of-place happy ending, "American Dreams" and "The Wonder Years" did it all much, much better. Nothing to see here you can't see elsewhere, people... except for Julia Stiles doing the twist, that is.


The 1960's were a time of change and awakening for most people. Social upheaval and unrest were commonplace as people spoke-out about their views. Racial tensions, politics, the Vietnam War, sexual promiscuity, and drug use were all part of the daily fabric, and the daily news. This film attempted to encapsulate these historical aspects into an entertaining movie, and largely succeeded.

In this film, two families are followed: one white, one black. During the first half of the film, the story follows each family on a equal basis through social and family struggles. Unfortunately, the second half of the movie is nearly dedicated to the white family. Admittedly, there are more characters in this family, and the story lines are intermingled, but equal consideration is not given to the racial aspects of this century.

On the whole, the acting is well done and historical footage is mixed with color and black and white original footage to give a documentary feel to the movie. The movie is a work of fiction, but clips of well-known historical figures are used to set the time-line.

I enjoyed the movie but the situations were predictable and the storyline was one-sided.


The 60s (1999) D: Mark Piznarski. Josh Hamilton, Julia Stiles, Jerry O'Connell, Jeremy Sisto, Jordana Brewster, Leonard Roberts, Bill Smitrovich, Annie Corley, Charles S. Dutton. NBC mini-series (later released to video/DVD as full length feature film) about the treacherous 1960s, as seen through the eyes of both a white family and a black family. The film's first half is driven by the excellent performance of Dutton as Reverend Willie Taylor and evenly spreads the storyline between the families. However, Dutton's character is killed halfway through and the black family is completely forgotten in a dull, incoherent, and downright awful 2nd half. RATING: 4 out of 10. Not rated (later rated PG-13 for video/DVD release).


I like a lot of the actors/actresses involved in this project so being insulted by the movie felt even worse than if they used a unknowns .The main problem was this movie was clearly just a concept created to appeal to baby boomers .In 20 or 30 years Nbc will probably do a movie just like this about the early 90's . I can see it now a black family where the kids are involved with the la riot's and the white family has the kids rebel and listen to grunge rock music .The soundtrack will feature bands like Nirvana , N.W.A , Public Enemy , Soundgarden etc .The movie like this will be just as cheesy as The 60's and I gurantee you NBC will do it .See the biggest problem with period pieces when done buy networks is that when you are living in a certain time period you aren't thinking i am living in the 60's or whatever decade is trendy retro at the time .Next time someone does something like this they should put more weight into there project


The '60s is an occasionally entertaining film, most of this entertainment is from laughing at the film. It is extremely uneven, and includes many annoying elements. Take for instance the switch between black & white, and color. If done right, this could of been fairly effective, but because it was done poorly , it turned into a nuisance and only detracted from the already bad experience; much of the film had an odd feel to it. The acting wasn't extremely bad for a made for TV flick, but then again it was downright embarrassing at other times. Many of the events were not coherent, and ending up being confusing. How did this family somehow end up being at many of the big events during the 1960's? The ending was much too sappy for my tastes; because it was hollywoodized, everything had to turn out right in the end. I would advise you to not waste your time on The '60s and do something else with your time. I'm glad I watched this in class, and not on my own time. I think I can safely say that the best part of the movie was the inclusion of Bob Dylan's music. Those are just my rambling thoughts on the flick. I hope you take my advice, and stay away from this.


Even if you could get past the idea that these boring characters personally witnessed every Significant Moment of the 1960s (ok, so Katie didn't join the Manson Family, and nobody died at Altamont), this movie was still unbelievably awful. I got the impression that the "writers" just locked themselves in a room and watched "Forrest Gump," "The Wonder Years," and Oliver Stone's 60s films over and over again and called it research. A Canadian television critic called the conclusion of the first episode "head spinning". He was right.


Somehow they summed up the 60's, ten years that radically changed our country, in four hours. And what a painful four hours it was. They trivilized the major events and happenings and they "claimed" it was about two families yet you barely saw the african-american family. If I were NBC I would be ashamed and embarrassed for airing such trash. What was amusing was this happy-go-lucky family you saw in the very beginning was tortured in so many ways, but managed to attend every major 60's event through the country. And the second family was such a non-factor. They devoted maybe five or six scenes total to this family. That poor son... Please NBC, do not make any movies about any other eras....leave that to PBS and the History Channel


The only way to get anything out of this film is to approach it as a comedy. Seen in that light, it does deliver.

If you're looking for a serious movie, look somewhere else. This film has absolutely no depth and offers little more than a cursory and one dimensional examination of "issues" with no insight whatsoever.

Making a movie about stereotypes and then making every single character in your movie a stereotype is an extremely poor strategy - especially when those same characters only break their hackneyed molds in predictable, stereotypical ways.

Busta Rhymes and Ice Cube make the film almost watchable, and Michael Rappaport turns in a good performance, but the script is so awful and the social commentary is so trite, it's hard to find anything redeeming.


This movie masquerades as a social commentary, when in fact it is every bit as ridiculous as the very racism it condemns. The premise of this movie: African-American = Strong... any other race = weak. The worst part is when Rapaport pulls a gun on Omar Epps and a Jewish guy. The Jewish guy, in stereotypical fashion, crumbles in fear and starts pleading for his life... but the big, strong, defiant Omar Epps stands strong with no fear. We also have the condemnation of every fraternity member as being a arrogant preppie drunk or rapist. The raped white girl, of course, begins considering lesbianism since she's just a weak white girl after all. When the nerdy white guy is rejected by the fraternity members he of course must fall in with the skinheads, who are incredible cowards; especially the big muscular guy who is beaten down quickly by the strong black men. Wait... BUSTA RHYMES BEAT UP A GUY TWICE HIS SIZE??? Yeah, right.

Of course the black men NEVER reject their own people and Omar Epps moves in with them easily. The scenes where Ice Cube threatens his white roommates and keeps them in line are just stupid -- of course he is the dominating one while his weak white roommates sit in fear of him and eventually move out. This movie was just terrible and the ending made me actually laugh out loud. The overly long slow-motion between Epps and Banks gets hilarious with the faces they make -- it's like watching my nephew and cousins making faces at each other (and they're all under 5). Do yourself a favor and skip this crapfest.


This is one of the most putrid movies of the 90's. I would not recommend it if you have something better to do.

This picture presents African-Americans as savage, uncultured, violent, inarticulate, reefer-smoking sociopaths. Fudge(Ice Cube) and his posse of homies are continuously disrespectful toward others in the dorm, not just the white people, but Asians too, and are never disciplined for their actions. Despite all that tolerance they keep on whining and crying about the evil white oppressors who run their lives and stand in their way. In fact it is Fudge's influence that causes Remmy to bond with the skin heads, to drop out of college, and eventually to kill Malik's girlfriend.

The skinheads are presented as a covert group of underachievers who share a pad off campus and generally stay away from everyone else. They never blast their music to annoy people nor do they taunt the police. They do commit serious crime such as battery and rape, yet they're not as repulsive nor as threatening as Fudge and Dreads(Busta Rhymes) are.

There's a lot of material in this film which almost offended me or made me giggle. Some of it is as follows below.

Fudge and Dreads are stated as students at the Columbus University yet we never see them in class and it is completely unclear how they pay their tuition. One is only left to speculate that the weed they smoke has something to do with their finances. Though they are students at what looks like a private university, they cannot utter a single line of proper English. Their characters are developed only through their compulsive whining and xenophobia.

It appears that drunken Kristen(Kristy Swanson) knew exactly why drunken Billy was taking her to his house. She even asked him to get a rubber so that they could begin. The fact that he penetrated her without a condom became a rape whilst it would be great sex only if he had one handy. Later Kristen was assured by Taryn(Jennifer Connely) that she holds no accountability in that matter, and despite willfully jumping into a guy's bed she wasn't ready for sexual intercourse and was viciously taken advantage of by a sexual predator. Then a week or so later she met, and slept with, an ultra-sensitive do-gooder who knew how to avoid raping and brought a condom. The director stressed contraception thoroughly.

This movie is complete and utter garbage that makes black people look like pricks and women look stupid and frail. Cole Hauser's acting, and Laurence Fishburne's accent are the only reasons I can think of to watch it. The writer/director is obviously a man of limited intelligence. Go ahead and limit your own by watching this crap if you want, but keep in mind that neurons don't grow back. Just follow the advice at the end and UNLEARN.


Yes, people are racist. People are even racist in college. That's a good point, and the issue of racism has been dealt with many times before in countless films. What sets Higher Learning apart from the pack is that it deals with the issue of racism in the most ham-fisted and predictable way possible, oh yeah it's in college too.

This film deals with this problem of racism the way Frankenstein deals with most problems, it bashes you over the head repeatedly in a brutal and sluggish manner. Most of the characters are cartoonish, one-dimensional, caricatures (lesbian feminist, angry black man), that react to situations as dramatically and predictably as possible. Instead of defying stereotypes this film is overpopulated with them. The angry black men feel cheated, feminists hate men, etc. (one feminist even holds a sign that reads "Dead Men Don't Rape." See what I mean?) I don't want to give anything away, but in this movie if someone seems like a shifty loner or a date rapist they'll probably behave exactly how you expect them to. The changes the characters go through seems obvious to everyone but the people in the movie. The big twist in the plot hinges on whether or not the violent neo-Nazis will act like violent neo-Nazis. I'll guess you'll just have to watch to find out what happens.

Another problem I have with this movie is that it's supposed to be "gritty" and "hard-hitting," but they make Nazis the bad guys. I agree Nazis are evil, but that's my point. Everybody thinks Nazis are bad; we're not breaking any new ground here. Nazis have been portrayed as villains since the 1930's. The film doesn't challenge any viewpoints or make bold statements. It just deals with issues we all know about in a clumsy, after-school-special like, manner. Being anti-rape, anti-racist, and anti-Nazi isn't exactly taking a hard stance on a controversial issue.

Higher Learning is predictable, cartoonish, and in a word stupid. Avoid at all costs.


Higher Learning says its OK for blacks to torment white people because they're all oppressors. most blacks in this movie are portrayed as ignorant savages. Stunning that this is supposed to be a positive movie about race. Incompetent acting, direction, and production values all contribute to this toothache of a flick. An appalling piece of trash. the perpetrators of this dreck should be ashamed. Higher Learning says its OK for blacks to torment white people because they're all oppressors. most blacks in this movie are portrayed as ignorant savages. Stunning that this is supposed to be a positive movie about race. Incompetent acting, direction, and production values all contribute to this toothache of a flick. An appalling piece of trash. the perpetrators of this dreck should be ashamed.


I don't understand why people would praise this garbage. Its wrong , stupid , unrealistic , awful , and just about everything else. The film is a view on life , racial issues , prejudice , and everything else that strangely goes on in College. This is where it fails. It has no grasps on reality. From many questionable non-sense scenes in the movie such as for example

A black man chasing down a white man with a gun, the black man and stopped by the security guards handcuffed and carried out while the gunman runs right past them.

The same white man snipering down people from a roof topic which is stopped and beaten down by the same black man is then stopped and given a Rodney King style beating while the gun man runs free while a moment later being chased back down by only one of the four guards.

As one previous reviewer pointed out Several white 230lbs men being beaten down by several black men weighing around 160lbs including the 105lbs Bust A Rhymes

Another critical flaw in the film are the shallow uninteresting main characters. From the scared and confused white people and the mean , angry , and yet rightful (?) black people. Its almost as its an insult to both black and white people. I am a white male and I know many black and hispanic people who agree that this movie is wrong to portray characters and giving them those characteristics exclusively due to their race.

The storyline which I will explain now revolves around three characters. One a black athlete , the other a confused scared white girl who questions her sexuality , and the third is a white man who is also confused and scared , then blames his problems on black people in which he becomes a nazi later in the film. They all have their share of problems and adventures including sex , rape , fights , love , hate , prejudice , racial war , and oh yeah don't forget education. Which all comes down at the end for the fatal shoot out. In which after they go back to their boring lives and think "being white is bad". Does this sound alot like your college years? Didn't think so. I don't think the director attended college especially if he were to make this awful mess.

Overall this is a really bad , bad , ugly movie. If you want to see a more accurate view or racial issues go see American History X. If you want to see a more accurate view of college rent Porkys. Just avoid this mess.


MINOR SPOILERS!

Well i just sat up late and watched this film, mainly because i enjoyed and rated some of Singleton's earlier work like "Boyz n the hood". However, i have to say this was a major disappointment and is everything i hate about contrived, clichéd, so-called "message" movies.

The acting is mainly poor,(pop stars and models do NOT necessarily make good actors...take note), the situations hard to swallow, (rape victim becomes overnight lesbian?...please!), but worst of all it reinforces every screwed up stereotype you can think of. By the second half of the film it has become cartoon like in its characterisation, making you lose any shred of empathy you may have had for its one-dimensional players.

Not once is any valid point made about the inherent causes of racism and cultural, sexual and political ignorance. As a result it merely ends up sensationalising the results of these problems. It's message is contradictory, resulting in a sense of confusion and a general lack of plot cohesion. As for the films conclusion i found it predictable, embarrassing, exploitative and mildly offensive. For a film called "Higher Learning" i have to say all i learned is to avoid seeing this ever again.

If you want a true comment on some of the themes that this film completely fails to elaborate upon then go hire "American History X"....unless you were just watching it for Tyra Banks then go hire a life.


Singleton has some serious issues he has to come to grips with. I get the feeling that he thinks he is pretty smart; however, this movie is almost comically transparent and self righteous. In addition, there are a bunch of "might-makes-right" messages like when our local Nazi jerks get beat up. I mean, who in their right mind is going to root for a bunch of Nazi jerks? However, he way Singleton portrays the "fight" is downright silly and seems to be designed to show us more the superior fighting qualities of the black protagonists than anything else. There is another "bad guy" (in reality a drunken frat boy) who rapes one of the movie's protagonists. In this instance, I think that Singleton actually does a nice job portraying what is probably an all too common situation when the woman involved asks the frat boy to use a condom and he either does not have one or does not want to use one. In any event, he does not accede to her demands that he stop and he proceeds to have intercourse despite her pleas. I think that this type of rape is all too common and in fact many uniformed people refuse to accept the fact that it is even a rape. Well, no means no, this is a rape, which probably occurs a lot in Universities across the country.

Having established the rape, how does Singleton deal with it? When the frat boy tries to call the woman, her roommate refuses to put the victim on the phone, at which point the frat boy calls the roommate a "black bitch." The aggrieved roommate appears to appeal to a counsel of Ice Cube, et al, who then proceed to physically humiliate and abuse the frat boy into repeated and prolonged "apologies" to roommate for his racist remarks; however the (apparently in Singleton's mind) lesser crime of rape is not mentioned. Again, no one really should feel sorry for the frat boy; however, Singleton seems to be sending a dual message that a racist comment is a greater offense then rape and in any event violence is justified against jerks.

What is so ultimately so disappointing is that this movie could have truly been about something important but Singleton, while no doubt a talented director, does not appear to have the maturity or depth to pull of something of this magnitude.


First of all yes I'm white, so I try to tread lightly in the ever delicate subject of race... anyway... White People Hating Black people = BAD but Black People Hating White people = OK (because apparently we deserved it!!). where do i start? i wish i had something good to say about this movie aside unintended comedy scenes: the infamous scene were Ice Cube and co. get in a fight with some really big, really strong, really really angry and scary looking Neo-Nazis and win!!! the neo-Nazi where twice the size :), and the chase! the chase is priceless... This is NOT a movie about race, tolerance and understanding, it doesn't deliver... this is a racist movie that re-affirm all the cliché stereotypes, the white wimpy guy who gets manhandled by his black roommate automatically transform in a skinhead...cmon simply awful I do regret ever seeing it.

Save your time and the dreadful experience of a poorly written ,poorly acted, dull and clearly biased picture, if you are into the subject, go and Rent American History X, now thats a movie


Despite, or perhaps in part because of the clever use of music to underscore the motivations and ideologies of each of the major characters, stereotypes are in, and verisimilitude and characterization are out in this not-too-subtle cinematic screed.

One gets the sense that John Singleton was dabbling in post-structuralist literary theory because it was the flavor of the day, and "Higher Learning" was the tendentious result. The low point of the movie is the "peace" rally, in which the symbols of the 1960s "free love" movement are reappropriated for what much more closely resembles a "Take Back The Night" rally with live, stridently identity-conscious musical acts in tow. Perhaps in his prim revisionism the director was trying to assert that identity politics is the new Vietnam? Ooh, how Adrienne Rich of himand Remy's firing into the crowd is a nice touch, if you're into Rich's sort of political posturing.

I wish I could give this movie negative stars. I can recommend it only to those interested in the 1990s as history, a time when radical feminists brought the academic trinity of race, class, and gender to popular culture and declared man-hating "a viable and honorable POLITICAL option". Where's Camille Paglia when you need her?


I haven't read a single IMDb comment for this movie that mentions how the Jewish character in this movie jumped up and down like a little baby as a gun is pointed in his face by a racist skinhead while the movie's lead black character looked in sternness down the barrel of a gun.

I don't know how anyone could perceive this as a balanced account of university life. I agree universities are not bastions of tolerance like they are supposed to be and the title would be fitting if Singleton didn't make his characters such broad caricatures.

On the surface he tries to portray Ice Cube's character as a bad guy, provoking Remy to become a racist skinhead. But who graduates at the end in the movie's redeeming epilogue? It seems Singleton points at white as either unable to empathize (I didn't say sympathize!) with his fellow black student OR only able to take the path of a racist skinhead. Many people who have been bullied by people of another race do not turn to extreme bigotry.

Nor do women who have been raped immediately turn to lesbianism, which is portrayed more as a cult than a lifestyle. Quite honestly what was the point?


This movie shows how racist John Singleton is. He portrays whites and other races that are not black as the evil that exists in our educational system. How quick he forgets that it is this same educational system that made him what he is and failed at it. Ice Cube's character is the epitome of an instigating black man that was responsible for most of the violence in this film. Singleton barely touched on the relationships between the white and black characters that were trying to reach out to each other. When Omar Epps says " I need to be with my people", that racist remark spoke volume. And John, don't think for a minute that the picture of Thomas Jefferson in the tower stairwell did not get my attention. Nice touch!


Based on the personal experiences of director John Singleton's time at the University of Southern California,comes Higher Learning. A film centered on the racial politics that occur at modern day colleges.

There are three main characters to which the film bases its foundation around for its story: Malik Williams, an carefree lowbrow athlete who is an African American male. Kristin Conner, a sheltered soft white girl, and Remy, a unsophisticated unconnected white male. All three are overcome by the sudden realities that college life is not as good as it is advertised as all three go through disappointment by being unprepared (Malik), by being naive (Kristin), and by being unwanted (Remy).

One good thing about the film is that it does show that modern American colleges are just high schools writ large. The colleges are not places to build character , develop potential, or enhance personal advancement, but they are institutions used to gather all sorts of students in a one-size-fits-all atmosphere. It is an experience that usually is built for failure for most students. It would have been good if the film built it story about this travesty rather than racial politics.

But it didn't and that's where the films falls apart. Singleton ,it seems, had a pretty bad experience at Southern California. Through this film he lets it all hang out. There is no need to beat around the bush here. Singleton lets the heroes and the villains of this piece be easily seen.

The black characters in the film are pretty much seen as the heroes here while all the whites in the film are seen as the villains, save for Kristin, who was raped by a fellow white student.

Who can understand the inconsistencies of this film? Black gang members who come to the aid of a white girl after she points out to them who supposedly raped her? The ease that the black gang members have at the university while a bunch of skin heads meet in a dark small dorm planning violence?

The performances of Omar Epps (Malik) and Kristy Swanson (Kristin) are disappointing. They do seem like the third choices for the roles that they played in this movie (Tupac Shakur and Drew Barrymore were supposed to play Malik and Kristin but were unavailable). O'Shea Jackson aka Ice Cube ,Busta Rhymes, and Regina King were all irritating in their respective roles. And Laurence Fishburne was woefully miscast here as the history professor. Only Michael Rappaport did well in this film and he did considering that his character ,of the three main characters, changed the most in the film.

John Singleton wanted to take on the matter of race and inequality in American college life with this film. And he did so quite badly. It was sort like killing a fly with a shotgun. Life is far more complex than it seems and people are alike all over and he should know this. Higher Learning is proof that he did not understand this at all. Seeing the film ,then and now, would only confuse, disappoint and enrage the same public he would wish to speak to. Not to mention it would not entertain them in the slightest.


I know John Singleton's a smart guy 'coz he made Boyz N The Hood, so how did he write and direct this? It's like the pilot of a bad "going away to college for the first time" teen soap, a parade of boring stereotypes and cliches with some gratuitous violence thrown in to make it a commercial proposition, I guess. Who would've guessed the date-rape victim would dump sausage for seafood? The angry loner would be preyed upon by a group of Neo-Nazis (and would be roomed-up with a black AND a Jew - just for laughs!) Even Laurence Fishburne's creepy reactionary history Professor just irritated me and I love the guy, it's like everyone involved with this movie just lost the plot. Except Busta Rhymes, of course. Big ups.


When I go out to the video store to rent a flick I usually trust IMDb's views on a film and, until this one, had never seen a flick rated 7.0 or above on the site I did not enjoy.

Sidney Lumet, a legendary director of some of the best films of the 20th century, really misstepped here by making one of the biggest mistakes a filmmaker can: filling a film's cast with thoroughly unlikeable characters with no real redeeming qualities whatsoever.

I like films with flawed characters, but no matter how dark someone's personality is we all have a bit of light in there too, we're all shades of gray with some darker or brighter than others. Mr. Lumet crossed this line by filling this movie with totally unsympathetic and almost masochistic pitch-black characters.

Ethan Hawke's Hank is a 30-something whining, immature, irresponsible man-child divorced from a marriage with a wife that hates him and a daughter who thinks he's a loser, which he very much is. His indecisiveness and willingness to let others do the dirty work for him because he's too cowardly to do it himself leads directly to their bank robbery plan falling apart and mother getting killed. By the time he stands up to his older brother at the end of the film, it's more pathetic than uplifting. Ethan Hawke plays his character well, but isn't given much to work with as he is portrayed as someone with a boot perpetually stamped on their face and he doesn't' particularly care that it's there.

Speaking of which his character's wife is equally as bad. Just about every single shot of the film she's in is her verbally berating him for rent and child support money and further grinding in his already non-existent self-esteem with insults. Seriously, that's just about all the character does. Her harpy-like behavior borders on malevolent.

Albert Finney plays their father Charles, and while Mr. Finney has been a great actor for many decades, he spends about 90% of this film with the same mouth open half-grimace on his face like he's suffering from the world's worst bout of constipation. For someone who's been an actor as long as Mr. Finney, you think he'd be more apt at emoting. Even though he doesn't show it much, his character is supposedly grief stricken and anger-filled. And when he smothers Andy at the film's conclusion it's akin to Dr. Frankenstein putting the monster he helped create out of it's own misery.

Marisa Tomei isn't given much to do with her character. Stuck in an unhappy marriage with Andy and having an affair with his brother for some unfathomable reason. When Andy's world begins to spiral out of control she logically jumps ship, but it really doesn't make her any less selfish or self-serving than any other character in the film, but probably the one with the most common sense at least.

And finally we come to Andy, played by the always good Philip Seymour Hoffman, is the only reason I rated this film a 3 instead of a 1. His performance of the heroin-addicted, embezzling financial executive who's "perfect crime" of robbing his parent's insured jewelry store goes awry is mesmerizing. His descent from calm master planner of a flawed scheme to unstable, deranged homicidal maniac is believable and tragic. Hoffman's character ends up being the film's chief villain, but it's hard to root against him given the alternatives are an emotionally castrated little brother and a father who's self-admitted poor early parenting led to his son's eventual psychosis and indirect, unintentional murder of his mother.

Ultimately this film is really only worth watching for PSH's great performance and it's family train wreck nature. Just don't expect there to be any characters worth cheering for, because there really aren't.


warning:It contains spoilers. If a movie starts with a sex scene then it's a bad movie. (see for example 300). This one confirms the above lemma. The second scene constitutes the spinning center of all the action. The fact that we know the end makes the movie boring. Even more, other plots are revealed as the story goes back and forth several times. And this made more frustrated. To compensate the consequent lack of suspense, we learn more and more about how unbalanced are the characters. And oh yes, they have lots to show. Andy (P.Hoffman), for example, is a drug addict, more?, he is cheating his wife, more?, he plans to rob his father, more?, his wife is cheating with his brother, more?, he doesn't regret his complicity to his mother's death, more?, he is a serial killer, more? etc etc it's not enough space to write here... I wonder how could he have a top job. And why his wife didn't leave him before. On the other hand I enjoy much the performances of the actor Hoffman.

Even here PSH saves what is left from my 7$ spent for this absurdity. Why absurdity? Because it doesn't have sense, why should I care for the despicable characters? Another broken lemma is that a movie should have a sympathetic( at least pleasant) character.

Also it's a lot of sentimentality, for example we are supposed to care for the sufferance of the widowed father without knowing anything about the parents'lives before the crime.


Although the lead actress is STRIKINGLY beautiful, the plot stands little chance of acceptance because too many distracting details face the audience during the unfolding of the story.

One may believe that middle-class teen-age school girls in the 1950's easily gave away their virginity without thought of marriage to 30-year-old's they barely know, but I doubt it.

One may believe that young high school teens are highly self-confident and self-assured as they interact with their elders in complex social situations, but my experience has been, more often than not, teenagers feel very awkward and act clumsy as they experiment in the adult world.

One may believe that a experienced medical doctor would not know the pungent oder of Stroptomycin -- the smelly fermenting byproduct of busy earth microbes -- and not detect that some lifeless bland powder is fake, but I think not.

One may believe that 30-something-year-old troublemakers can enter into, and hang around inside, a public school rec hall during a school social and make trouble, but I think that school socials are traditionally a protected environment and parents, chaparones and school staff would be around to prevent this.

One final nit, throughout Hey Babu Riba the five teenage friends referred to themselves as the foursome. There is probably an explanation why the FIVE were the FOURsome, but because it was never detailed, each reference distracts from each scene.

This movie did not ring true for me.


Nacho Vigalondo is very famous in Spain. He is a kind of bad showman who can make you feel sick... Very embarrassing. Nacho had made some commercials in TV, I remember one in which Nacho was looking for Paul Mc Carney around Madrid (the commercial was about a Mc Carney CD collection).

This little movie is like a Nacho's commercial: bad storyline, bad directing, and awful performances. I can't believe that a disgusting movie like this was in The Kodak Theater. Poor Oscar...

Nacho could made this movie because of his wife, the producer of this 7:35, a woman very well connected with Spanish TV business men.


Richard Farnsworth is one of my favorite actors. He usually gives solid performances, such as in The Straight Story, and The Grey Fox. He also does fairly well here, but the rest of the film suffers from a low budget, poor writing, and so-so photography. The Miller-Movie formula gives it a 4. Richard gets a 5.


Hey if you have a little over an hour to kill and find paint to be too exciting I'd suggest it. If thou you happen to like cheap b-movies like me it's good for a giggle! Other than that I wouldn't suggest that you rent it, I'd wait till it comes on the tube say round 4 am on the free access channel of your cable/satellite supplier. The band that did this sound track by the way was on the road after for about two years after this flick, and no they sounded just as bad live according to the two small town reviews I could find on them. So once again good if you find grass growing to much fun but good to watch if you like to see how NOT to shoot a low budget movie.


Now, I'm no film critic, but I truly hated "September 11". This film was, on a general basis, bad. With the exception of Alejandro González Iñárritu's segment, which was the most effective and direct about the subject matter, the short films were at best boring, and at worst offensive. The worst in my mind was Youssef Chahine's pretentious segment in which he compared Palestinian suicide bombers to American soldiers, even going so far as to suggest the suicide bombers were fighting for a greater cause. The segment was completely off topic and, considering Chahine's seeming lack of any decency whatsoever, a waste of my time and patience. The idea of getting eleven different directors from different countries to make a movie featuring their views on a tragedy was good on paper, but in practice, it was tasteless.