As usual, I was really looking forward to a new TV/film on a favourite subject of mine - makes a nice change from a *strangely familiar* documentary about Kursk or Stalingrad on the History Channel.

I avidly looked forward to Pearl Harbour and Enemy at the Gates - but was rudely brought down to earth with the realisation of the malevolent, stupid-ifying power of Hollywood - and its ability to spend an absolute fortune on tripe.

So yet again I got excited about 'The Rise of Evil', especially as I heard that Ian Kershaw was involved, as I've enjoyed his books. I can see why he quit.

To quote some guy responsible for this rubbish:

"The Kershaw book was an academic piece," he said. "It was

quite dry. We needed more incidents."

Incidents? Are they totally nuts? Hitler's life cannot be said to be without 'incident' - yes Kershaw's two volume Hitler biographies were long and detailed, but they were supposed to be.

The thesis behind 'Rise of Evil' seems to be:

Hitler was a very bad man - no he was a VERY bad man, who HATED jews, and just in case you miss this, we're going to emphasise the fact in EVERY scene in the film.

There was no effort whatsoever to try and explain the mood of the time, and why Hitler may have adopted the views and strategy he did. Needless to say - unlike the generally excellent 'Nazis - A Warning from History' - this film neglected to point out the fact that nearly all of the leaders of the Munich communist rising were Jewish, and that this may have coloured his views on the subject - and his axiomatic linking of the jews with Bolshevism - an absolutely crucial aspect to understanding much of the Nazi era.

But there was not much understanding to be done - the film-makers weren't going to go there, so we just got all the stuff we knew about anyway. We certainly don't get the fascinating fact that Kershaw alludes to, which has Hitler briefly being a socialist/communist immediately after WW1. That would of course be far too complex for the film to handle, and might even detract from the relentless 'he was very bad' mantra which bangs away incessantly.

We know he was a bad man. However, we also know that he was a mesmerising figure both as a public speaker and in more private situations. He could be polite and even sympathetic, and of course espoused some views like vegetarianism, anti-alcohol and anti-smoking that many Guardian readers could agree with. He was also famously fond of animals, hence why that wholly invented dog-flogging scene was so absurd.

He was also, from all the accounts I've seen, a brave soldier in WW1. Whilst we saw him with his Iron Cross, we never get to see how he won it (acts of bravery were not in the script, needless to say). We also get no insight whatsoever into why he was so fired up by his war experiences, whilst Sassoon, Owen, Brook, Remarque and so many others found it so repellent an experience. And again, like the point above re the jewish/bolshevik link, this is vital to anyone's understanding about the subject. Why did he love war so much? Why did he think it was always a good idea, despite massive evidence to the contrary? Why didn't he care about his colleagues who died? Or maybe he did - but still drew the wrong conclusions.

This film certainly didn't have anything of any interest to say on this either.

As all too often these days, the film is a classic example of 'making history relevant to the present' and inventing stuff or leaving awkward facts out to fit in with 'the present' - which all too often is to cater to the lowest common denominator, where you don't trust your audience an inch, so you just ram stuff down their throats, knowing (sadly correctly) that you'll always get away with it because there are so many dumb fools in the world.

History is really about making us relevant to the past and seeing how it colours our present, for better and for worse. This rubbish was a great opportunity, lost again. They spent millions on it, and the locations and large scenes were impressive, but told us nothing at all we didn't know already, and promoted no understanding of this dark period in human history.

WT


Well first off I'd like to add that I myself is somewhat of a historian so what I look for in a film that is based upon historical events is that it is actually based upon historical facts. But this is however not the case here. Sure the movie is entertaining and all but the fact that it isn't entirely based upon true facts is more than annoying. Hitler wasn't anti-semitic in his youth, he even worked for Jews before world war one. It was however during world war one and after that he formed his views about the Jews. His upbringing in this movie is also inaccurate, Hitler as a child wasn't a disturbed little brat. He had a more or less normal upbringing. Nothing is mentioned about his lost brothers and other important pieces that adds to the puzzle that is Hitler.

Robert Carlyle is a great actor but he doesn't really fit in the role as Hitler. Hitler wasn't as impossible and unstable as he is portrait-ed here. Under his younger years he was a charismatic person whom "manipulated" people through his charms. His unstable behavior and rage outbursts started in the turning point of the war.

I'd like to see a film about Hitler's life that is based upon real historical facts and not accusations. I really hate when people point a blaming finger at for example Hitler and others and tell inaccurate stories just to paint a picture of them as pure evil. It is much better to actually tell the story EXACTLY as it was so that everyone can learn what it was like! The ones behind this movie should have made some research before making this. Because it seems as if they didn't even know what really happened. Hitler wasn't even shot in the revolutionary march in Munch, his shoulder was ripped out of its socket.

It gives you more to see a good documentary than seeing this.


I watched this hoping to find out something I didn`t know about modern history`s most infamous man and couldn`t help thinking that history has been rewritten in HITLER:THE RISE OF EVIL . Hitler was so obsessed with his niece that he threatened to have one of her admirer`s shot . Hitler turned up with a gun in his hand to arrest Ernst Rohm . Forgive me for asking but haven`t the writers confused Adolph Hitler with Tony Montana from SCARFACE ? That`s bad enough but what really offended me was that there`s entire chunks of historical context missing in this mini series . Germany lost the first world war and the allied powers made Germany pay a heavy price for doing so. It was this economic environment that led the German people to have someone - anyone - to restore their pride and that`s why they turned to Nazism . The German humiliation of the 1920s caused by the allied powers seems to be entirely missing therefore there is no way that HITLER:THE RISE OF EVIL can be taken seriously as a historical document, and I haven`t even mentioned that Himmler and Goering are conspicous by their absence <br /><br />There is one positive point about the mini series and that`s Robert Carlyle in the title role . Okay some of his mannerisms are wrong and his voice is a little too loud ( Archive recordings show that Hitler had a soft seductive voice ) but Carlyle is a charismatic actor and he does manage to communicate Hitler`s own charisma on screen . Comments in the British press that Carlyle resembles the synth player from Sparks more than Adolph Hitler are unfounded and he gives one of the better interpretations of Hitler.

I liked the performance by Robert Carlyle but I hated everything else about this mini series and wondered why on earth it was made in the first place . There`s nothing to recommend it to serious history fans


Just imagine the real Hitler, who was a master of propaganda and speech, would have been such a mumbling moron as Carlyle portrayed him in this film.

Nobody would have followed him, not even a desperate, unemployed guy in the 1920s.

This is just a Hollywood cardboard piece of propaganda itself, disguised as "true history".

I pity everyone who actually believed anything from this show. Carlyle and the producers didn't get anything right with this.

Why was Hitler able to win so many people, a whole county for his ideas if we was such a sausage? Why did people follow him to death? By portraying him as such a loser they make their own film totally unbelievable. This film is a mixture of old WW2 propaganda and MTV urban myths about one of the most important persons of the last century. Imagine a film about Churchill where the director only shows him as a drunkard for 90 mins.

This film is a disgrace and I wonder how they could talk an actor like Carlyle into this dreck.


This could well be the worst film I've ever seen. Despite what Mikshelt claims, this movie isn't even close to being historically accurate. It starts badly and then it's all downhill from there. We have Hitler's father cursing his own bad luck on the "fact" that he'd married his niece! They were in fact, second cousins. Hitler's mother, Klara, called his father, Alois, "uncle" because Alois had been adopted and raised by Klara's grandfather and brought up as his son, when he was really his nephew. Alois was much older than Klara and so as a child she'd got into the habit of calling Alois, "uncle."

The scene in the trenches where Hitler is mocked by his fellow soldiers and decides to take it out on his dog is simply a disgrace and an insult to the intelligence of all viewers. We see Hitler chase the dog through the trench, when he catches up with the poor thing he proceeds to thrash it for disobeying him. In the distance we see and hear his fellow soldiers continue to mock and chastise the cowardly little man, but then a shell lands directly on his persecutors, and every last one, we are told, is killed outright. How then, if Hitler was the only person to survive the scene, did this tale of brutality and cowardice come to be told? Did Hitler himself go around "boasting" about it? - I don't think so.

Next up, Hitler bullies and intimidates a poor, stressed out and war weary Jewish officer into giving him an Iron Cross! I can only assume that this Jewish officer had been a pawnbroker before fighting for the Fatherland, and had thoughtfully brought along some pledged medals from his shop, because I'm certain that Iron Crosses were not being handed out as shown in this comic farce.

All the grotesque clichés are here, not least the calming and hypnotic effect of Wagner's music upon the little man. If only the producers had kept Ian Kershaw on side. Then they might have discovered that Franz Lehar's "Merry Widow" was more likely to float the Fuhrer's boat than any "Flying Dutchman" from the cannon of Richard Wagner!

Hitler may have been responsible for the deaths of 60 million people but how can he ever be forgiven for his appalling taste in music?

I could go on but I'd be at it for hours.

Give it a miss.


I saw that movie, and i was shocked! Robert Carlyle isn't Hitler he is a man who sadly tries to be Hitler. The Movie lies, it doesn't reflect the truth. In the scene were Hitler hit the guy with his gun. Hitler never had hit anybody, he wouldn't hit people with his fist, but with the fists of soldiers. Understand?? Another thing is: It is too obvious, that Hitler is that evil, he was more clever, than shown in this movie. No German would have accepted him as the leader, because the can see that he is evil. So the real Hitler haven't shown his evil side to the people.

Have any of you Yankees watched the movie "Der Untergang" or "The Dawnfall"? this is a great movie, with amazing actors. And its a German movie. I think, this Theme of Nazi-Germany, should not be realized as a movie by people who don't know anything of Germany. People! Watch "Der Untergang":

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0363163/

Its a great movie about a very sad period of time for human beings around the world.


If another Hitler ever arises, it will be thanks in part to nonsense like this film, which propagates the absurd notion that he was a visibly deranged lunatic from the start. Far from following such a person and electing him to the highest office in the land, sane people would cross the street to avoid him, and he would have died in a ditch, nameless and unknown.

Anyone who reads the accounts of Hitler's close companions - the autobiography of his secretary Traudl Junge for instance - will be struck by the fact that people found him a kindly, intelligent, generous man. He was also a brilliant orator, and the fact that his speeches seem overblown and ranting to modern ears ignores the times in which they were made, when strutting pomposity was common in political speeches. Ditto the overstated anti-Semitism, which was neither a central plank of the early Nazis - who were primarily anti-communist - nor uncommon or unusual for the times. The film makes it look as though Hitler's sole ambition from the start was the Holocaust.

If you want to identify the next person who will cause the death of tens of millions, you can ignore fleck-lipped ravers life the one portrayed here. Look instead for a charming, charismatic man whose compelling speeches inspire the entire nation, and whose political work visibly and materially benefits the country. I'm afraid his personality will be much more like Barack Obama's than Fred Phelps'.

I hoped for much here, and got nothing but caricature. The fools who made this thing perpetrated a crime against reality. This is the historical equivalent of 'Reefer Madness'.


This is by far one of the most boring and horribly acted accounts of the early days of Adolf Hitler that I have ever watched. Robert Carlyle is a wonderful actor, but to cast him as Hitler is just plain wrong. To cast Liev Schrieber as Hitler's longtime friend and aid, Haefengstal must have emitted cries of despair and anguish from the Simon Wiesenthal Centre. A J-W playing a Nazi supporter, bad bad bad casting. This was not an enjoyable family film with a good historical background. This was Hollywood rubbish at its finest, cashing in on the strength of a strong (but sorely under utilized) supporting cast of actors whom seemed to have all but disappeared from the acting radar in the past 5 years.

The fake German accents (vee vill vin zis var) is insulting to German people everywhere. My mother is German and she sat fuming at the sound of the voices which kept switching from American/English/German all in the same sentence. The supporting cast make better cardboard cutouts at the local video store than they do on screen. Jenna Malone as the fated Geli Raubal, was splendid though, she captured the innocence and confusion of this tragic young woman who ultimately ended her own life to escape what her future would have been like in Hitler's shadow.

If you would like a tremendously fantastic and historically accurate account of Hitler's early years leading up to and including the war/holocaust, rent "Inside the Third Reich" 1983 starring Rutger Hauer as Albert Speer and Derek Jacobi as Hitler. It was good and made more sense then this baloney.

As a historical researcher of the Third Reich I can honestly tell you, this had me reaching for my books to confirm its myriad of inaccuracies.


The back cover of the DVD (missed this one when it came out) hails Hitler -the Rise Of Evil as "A Triumph" (The New York Post) and "Mesmerizing" (Newsweek).

Well,never mind the Post but really, who ever wrote that word in Newsweek in the same context with this peace of, ahem, art should be sacked.

I don't no where to start with. Why try to paint the picture of Hitler's evil with colors that did not exist? He was evil alright, but now his character is portrayed in way that is often historically inaccurate (compared to his love of animals, the gentle and subdued way he treated women) and so on.

The actors are good, so you must feel sorry for them as they are imprisoned inside their one-dimensional characters. Some kind of curse here with Peter O' Toole: This is the second time in his honorable career when he has ended up playing an old and failed leader in a failed movie (or in this case TV-production, to be accurate). The first one was of course the legendary Galigula.

The list of historically inaccurate scenes alone would fill the 1000 words allowed by IMDb, so I think I'll leave it here.

This one is OK if it's on telly and you don't have anything else to do, but believe me - it's best left on the shelf in your local Virgin store.


I watched this film few times and all i can say that this is low budget rubbish and that it does not have anything to do with a real history facts. Actors performances is very poor but it is result of limited acting possibilities. Anyone who watched this film now probably think of Hitler as some crazy skinny lunatic who running with a gun like some Chicago gangster. I can only to say that there is much better films about Hitler and Germany in those years and that Rise of evil is very much under average. I can recommend German film Downfall in which you can see brilliant performance of Switzerland actor Bruno Ganz in a roll of Adolf Hitler.


Simply put, this is a simplistic and one dimensional film. The title, The Rise to Evil, should tell you that this isn't going to attempt to be anything deep or do much with Hitler's character. Rather, from the first minutes of the movie where we see baby Hitler looking evil with evil music playing the background, we are given a view of Hitler that presents his as a cartoony supervillian, seemingly ripped right out of a Saturday morning TV show. The film REALLY wants to make its case that Hitler was evil but does anyone need a movie to convince them that Hitler was evil? Ultimately, making him such a one-dimensionally evil character is both boring and confusing (one must ask how the inept, phsycotic character in the film cold ever persuade a nation to follow him or be named Time's man of the year). This film had a great opportunity to take a figure who has committed some of the most horrible acts in the 20th century, and try to delve into his mind. Instead, it basically just says, "Hey! Hitler was evil! Just thought you might like to know..." over and over again. The great irony is that the film still was attacked for presenting too sympathetic a view of the character. Give me a break.


I have rarely been subjected to such outright nonsense in a film that is supposed to be based on a historical figure. A horrible joke of a film, I cringed throughout. Terrible, trite, distorted and riddled with outright lies and half truths.

The famous Hitler biographer Ian Kershaw was to originally be a consultant for this film. However, he found the script to be so historically inaccurate and ridiculous that he refused, and also demanded they stop using his name as a source (it embarrassed him to think people would think he was involved).

One scene shows Hitler beating his dog. There is not one source for this. Hitler loved animals above people. He brought in the strictest animal welfare laws in Europe, banned vivisection and animal experimentation. He was also a vegetarian.

The film turns his gaining of the Iron Cross into a farce, involving bribery. Utter lies. He was awarded it for repeated acts of bravery over a long period of time.

There are no historical documents showing that Hitler ever had a sexual relationship with his niece. Not one.

Apart from these, Hitler is portrayed as a rabid simpleton in this garbage flick.

If he was even half as ignorant, demented and thick as he is in this nonsense film as in real life you would not even know he had ever existed. Never mind become the leader of Germany.

Honestly, this film was utterly terrible.

Go watch Downfall and give this a very wide berth.


I have recently watched this movie twice, and I can't seem to understand why the h*ll the makers made this pile of crap. I mean, yes, It gives a great impression of Hitler's environment, and I mean the way they reproduced Austria in the late 1890's, WWI and the Inter-war period. What I can't understand is why they pictured Hitler as a 100% pure evil, mad, unreliable, mentally unstable freak. He was after all a very thoughtful, loving and intelligent man who of course had his dark sides, no doubt about that. But why in heaven's name portray him in this way? All of his positive aspects have been cut out of the scenario, leaving nothing but a very propaganda-like portrait of a man who had the biggest influence on modern civilization ever. Yes, he threw Germany into the devastating 2nd World War. Yes, he was racist, and yes he was at times menially unstable especially at the end of the war. All true. But again; why the hell did they plain LIE to the public? To warn us?

I absolutely don't think this movie was a warning. The true danger of Hitler and the Nazi's was the fact they were able to rise to power at moments of severe global weakness. The fact this evil was so recognizable yet so embraced by almost every German alive (not to mention Austrians and a LOT of other people) makes it a warning to modern civilization, NOT the fact Hitler was such a 'weirdo'. If it would have been like the makers make us believe - I would have been convinced that the German people were retarded. A man like the one in this movie would have never gotten anywhere near party leader - not to mention ReichsKanzler.

4/10


I'm not sure it was the language or the poor acting, but everything about this movie feels and looks cheap and fake.

After seeing Der Untergang this is a huge disappointment. There's no connection between different scenes, and the acting is so incredibly poor I couldn't even believe people could make such a mess of something that had great potential.

And above all, everyone in Germany speaks English. Big mistake. The German language has a certain sound to it, and especially Hitler himself only sounds like Hitler when he's speaking/yelling German.

The way the story is told made me believe it was improvised on the spot, the characters were empty and the movie seems to be a collection of random events that could have happened.

Whether it's the English or the fact that I've already seen Der Untergang, everything about this movie was fake and ridiculous.


This 1919 to 1933 Germany looks hardly like a post WWII Czech capitol. Oh sorry, it is the Czech capitol and it is 2003, how funny.

This is one of the most awful history movies in the nearest past. Röhm is a head higher than Adolf and looks so damned good, Göring looks like 40 when he just is 23 and the "Führer" always seems to look like 56. And the buildings, folks, even buildings have been young, sometimes. Especially 1919 were a lot of houses in Germany nearly new (the WWI does not reach German cities!). No crumbling plaster! Then the Reichstagsbuilding. There have never been urban canyons around this building, never. And this may sound to you all like a miracle: in the year 1933 the Greater Berlin fire brigade owns a lot of vehicles with engines, some even with turntable ladders, but none with a hand pump.

One last thing: What kind of PLAYMOBIL castle was this at the final sequence? For me this was a kind of "Adolf's Adventures in Wonderland"


Advertised by channel seven in Australia as the "untold story", this miniseries undoes itself in the first five minutes by washing over the titular character's childhood and adolescence in less time than a good director will use to set up a single event. This cowardice and self-censorship for the fear of offending anyone permeates the series, and is ultimately responsible for its failure.

Robert Carlyle puts in a valiant performance as the most hated man of the twentieth century, but he is hamstrung by two things. The lack of a decent dialogue coach on the series leaves his Northern-UK heritage shining blindingly through his physical appearance, and the dialogue is at times truly abysmal. Apparently, acknowledging the fact that Hitler was raised in a Catholic family is off limits, but insulting millions of Vikings and their descendants by having Carlyle spew the most ridiculous lines about Valhalla is quite okay. Well, here's a clue for the writers - any person familiar with Viking mythology will tell you that Valhalla is about the embodiment of honour and might in battle, two things that the Nazis quickly eschewed in favour of rat cunning and backstabbing. Until we can wake up to ourselves and realise that the reason Hitler has never been excommunicated from the Catholic church is because it would require the embarassing acknowledgement that he was once a member, we will never learn what this awful period of the world's history has to teach us.

So now that we've managed to insult Vikings and the citizens of Scandinavian countries in this sham, you'd think the series would stop there, but it doesn't. Stockard Channing's listing in the opening credits was particularly eyebrow-raising, given that her voice is heard, and her face seen, for about thirty seconds at the most during the opening credits, making it patently transparent that more footage of Hitler's early days were shot, but not included because of a typical nanny-state fear of offending someone. It is also quite ironic that the films or miniseries which give a far better insight into Hilter's character do not feature him at all.

Until we learn to stop sugar-coating the truth and realise that the citizenry of Germany was mostly unopposed to Hitler's views, and not necessarily through ignorance, we will never learn to deal with the fact that subversions of democracy (yes, Germany was a democracy pre-Hitler) can occur anywhere, we are doomed. That's the one thing this mini-series got right in portraying. Unfortunately, that element is lost in attempts to make Hitler's religious beliefs appear those of a much more valiant people, and the inability to scratch past the surface in any part of the subject matter. David Letterman's show had it pegged when they ran short satirical segments about the series. They really might as well have made a family sitcom with him as the star, that's how badly it was written.

All in all, this politically correct farce of a bio-pic is worth no points, but I gave it two because Robert Carlyle definitely deserves better material than this, and he is about the only thing in it that works.


If anybody really wants to understand Hitler, read WWI history not WWII history. Find out what happened during that war, how soldiers had to live around dead corpses all the time. How so many soldiers went insane, from what they saw during WWI, at the time they called it "shellshocked" now the call it post-traumatic stress disorder. If you learn the true horrors of WWI, you will begin to understand Hitler. You will understand how a human being can become desensitized to death, not because their evil but simply because it was the only way for them too cope with the horrors around them.

This movie unfortunately misses that, as so many others do. Read some books on the subject and you should watch the movie "paths of glory", the only good WWI movie ever made. You will see the frustration of the soldiers in that movie, the sense of helplessness, and a utter devaluation of human life, as nothing more than bullet catchers.

Thats what this movie misses, its really the key point to understanding Germany. A lost war, where millions and millions of Germans lost their lives, for no real reason. Then comes an utter economic collapse, following the war. Those are the factors that create extremism.

The loss of family members and massive poverty will create always lead to extremism. Unfortunately this movie ignored these factors, and has just become another throw away piece of crap to throw on the pile. With really no real value, there are fictional movie's based upon fictional characters that could give you a better idea of Hitler than this does. They just threw Hitlers name on this so it would sell more.


First, before reading further, you must understand that I'm not neo-nazi, I'm just trying to understand correctly Hitler to be sure nobody like him take power again.

I've seen this series and found it awful. I mean, OK, it's interesting to look, but is it real? I searched for answers and found one: absolutely not. First, Hitler wasn't angry all his life, the series shows an angry Hitler, even when he is a child. Second, Hitler never wanted to abuse his daughter, in fact, it is highly probable that Hitler, in reality, was gay and fought all his life to choke this secret. Third, people will hate me but it's true: Hitler was charming. How do you think he managed to get to power if he was so hateful and ugly? Because he was charming. That's a common point I found in the interviews of people who live near or far of him (of course, not Jews).

This series was awful because if you think that Hitler was just an angry bastard, ugly, and of course, not charming at all, you're wrong. If you think that, you will let people like him take power in countries and you don't want that. If you really understand how Hitler managed to get into power, and stop thinking he was just awful, you'll be able to find dangerous politicians like him (of course, remember he was elected) and stop theme before it's too late.

Life is important to protect, this series is just awful to show us the truth, if we continue to see Hitler like that, another one will take place exactly as the first did.


Having grown up in Texas, and less than 15 miles from what used to be Gilley's, I can tell you that this movie is nauseating. The majority of Texans do not live like this movie indicates. The plot is weak, and the fake accents are amusing, and it reinforces the stereotypical image that all Texans are beer drinking, honky-tonkin', rednecks. The horribly fake Texas accents is what kills it for me. True, there is a certain Texas twang to most Texans' accents, but these people overdo it. You can't get someone from New Jersey and Ohio to do Texas accents. It just doesn't work. John Travolta should have stuck to disco-dancing or the 50s. Debra Winger was more convincing as Wonder Girl than she is as a Texan.


The year 1934 was when Shirley Temple played three major movies and really began to make a name for herself. Unfortunately, the studios had to experiment to see what the public best liked about here. Two of those things were singing and dancing. Another was a short, interesting film that kept people's attention and got their minds off The Depression. You know the other keys to Shirley's successful films.

This film achieved none of the above, despite the star presences of Gary Cooper and Carole Lombard and despite a very good director in Henry Hathaway. In addition, there are too many talky parts in here which become simply boring, and too many arguments between a sullen Lombard and Cooper. To top it off, you didn't get the normal feel-good ending which is what the public wants. I guess they learned after this movie.


The movie is an extra-long tale of a classic novel that completely fails to capture the original adventure's spirit. The quite horribly American Patrick Swayze is cast as the British hero Allan Quatermain despite the obviousness of his nationality.

The movie continues throughout to "Hollywood-ise" the story by changing both the plot and the characters to fit more comfortably into the accepted mold. The movie manages to be predictable throughout, even to those who are not familiar with the story and is plagued by some extremely bad acting and terribly disappointing fight sequences.

All in all, a terrible addition to the already quite bad collection of movies based on the legend of King Soloman's Mines and Allan Quatermain.


OK. Not bad movie making if it were from an original script. BUT IT IS NOT!

Which part of "in this story there are no women, except for Foulata and Gagoola" introduction by Haggard did the producers, directors and writers not understand? I mean, it is pretty plain English. I understood it at age 10!. The beauty of KSM is that it contains a spectacular description of three different worlds, the colonial Africa, the unforgiving desert and Kukuanaland, a hidden and isolated kingdom. That should be more than enough for even the most mediocre of producers to work with. But, nooo, they have to throw "romance" into it. Pathetic. Suggestion to all you poor souls who actually thought this would be close to the book. Give it up. Until a Peter Jackson wannabe comes along and "does it right" you may as well keep re-reading the tome. BTW, there is a sequel book (actually a pre-quel) called Allan's wife. It gives background to the story of Quatermain. It is a bit creepy but good.


The movie is very lengthy and unfortunately pretty different from the Novel. If you want to see the movie then don't read the novel first as it will shock you. However, cinematography was OK and if you are a person who loves adventure genres which explores Africa then go for it. Acting performances are adequate, however, many important events that were present in the novel are omitted. In the novel, Sir Henry Curtis was in search of his missing brother rather than a lady in search of her father. Gagool was cunning and was killed in the cave whereas here she was shown to be a good person who preferred to stay with the new king.


Start of with the good bit: several times Swayze talks Zulu to his friends or that language is heard among the tribes. That's a great plus, as normally USA & UK movie audiences think all people on this planet speak English (just in case you're one of them: no they don't).

But the acting is 'tenenkrommend' as we say in The Netherlands (it makes your toes curl -and not in a good way). I like Swayze but in this he's awful. The muscles in his jaws make overtime and he's frowning the whole movie -some one must have told him it looks butch. No Patrick: it looks silly and is compensation for lack of character. Alison Doody (Elizabeth) has opted for a style of acting that does not meet the style of her co-workers. Her acting is só relaxed that this movie could have been set in the current days. And it's not. Your frock was a clue, Alison.

The best acting came from the people from the African Continent and Sided Onyulo as Umbopa I liked best. Clear, warm and in character, his performance is a joy to watch.

General: it is mwah-entertaining on a rainy day. Pity. Could have been better. Sack the director.


This is the worst imaginable crap. The novel by H. Rider Haggard is very entertaining and dramatic. The makers of this worthless movie don't follow it closely. Well, old novels aren't sacred and making free versions of them is fine with me if one has ideas of one's own. If all one can do is changing things and replace them with uninteresting and watered-down clichés one should stick to the original. If they had done that this film would have been at least twice as good even with worse actors and if filmed inside a studio with huts made of cardboard. BUt there's no imagination at all only tiredness. This should be bought or watched only by collectors of Victorian novels made into movies.

Just a hint, and not a spoiler I think, to make those of you who have read the novel understand what has taken place and what you may expect if you decide to watch this on TV or - God forbid - waste money on buying this. Gagool an old baddie witch in the book and some precursor to Gollum has been turned into a nice gal!


I picked this movie on the cover alone thinking that i was in for an adventure to the level of "Indiana Jones and The Temple of Doom". Unfortunately I was in for a virtual yawn. Not like any yawn i have had before though. This yawn was so large that i could barely find anything of quality in this movie. The cover described amazing special effects. There were none. The movie was so lightweight that even the stereotypes were awfully portrayed. It does give the idea that you can solve problems with violence. Good if you want to teach your kids that. I don't. Keep away from this one. If you are looking for family entertainment then you might find something that is more inspiring elsewhere.


Swayze doesn't make a very convincing Alan Quatermain. Compared to Stewart Granger; which growing up was my ultimate hero in films like the 1952 "Scaramouche", the 1952 "Prisoner of Zenda" and the 1950 "King Solomon's Mines"; Patrick Swayze fails utterly. Even the portrayal of an older Alan Quatermain by Sean Connery in "League of Extraordinary Gentlemen" was very good in an otherwise big flop. Also Alison Doody lacks the grace of Deborah Kerr in the role of the leading lady, and last but not least the impressive Siriaque in the role of Umbopa makes it very hard for anyone to fill his (shoes)!!! For someone who was disappointed by Richard Chamberlain's 1985 version, I now highly recommend it if you can't get your hand on the granger version.


I give 3 stars only for the beautiful pictures of Africa. The rest was... well pretty boring. For about 50min we have the outline of the plot... In War of the worlds, the introductory part lasted, oh, about 10min? Then was real action! This is something like:"Let's take a walk in the savanna and gasp at the beautiful sunsets!". And maybe deliver a message, like "Don't kill elephants!". Very ecological. I would have expected this out of a "new" Steven Segal movie, not from this... The leading actress makes me think about artificial sun-tan, dyed hair and too much foundation! And I didn't see one scene where her hair is messed up, or she sweats, or her clothes are dusty. She just doesn't look like a 19 century woman! And in the bar, where they seek up our hero, Swayze makes a comment about the commander that he looks like Dracula. Hmmm, Bram Stoker wrote his book and published it in 1896, and it became famous in the next years. Livingstone and other explorers went to central Africa from 1840 to 1880. So unless the action takes place between 1896 and 1900.. Houston, we have a problem. :) Swayze makes a nice impression.. as a nutshell - hard on the outside, but soft and cuddly on the inside. Not that I would cuddle with a nut, but you get the point. He really manages to have that beaten puppy look on his face on several occasions. The movie stank. Way too long and increasingly boring. don't watch it! Don't buy it! It's a waste of your money!


Well! What can one say? Firstly, this adaptation is far too long at 4 hours, for the complexity (or lack of such) of the plot. The actors try really hard to make something of this film but there is too little content for the time available. Swayzee is really NOT a Quatermain character at all. After seeing Sean Connery's interpretation of the great man in "The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen", Swayzee really does not make the grade. This chap with the winchester repeating rifle has none of the strength, stature, subtlety, or humour needed for the part, and is upstaged by everyone including the witch doctor, who incidentally seems from my point of view to be more convincing as an actor than the rest of the cast. Some of the vistas are pleasing but there are silly mistakes in the cinematography. For example. When the happy team arrive at the water hole in the middle of the desert, their tracks are visible down to the oasis, just waiting for them to walk in them. Climbing out of the mine leads to an exit (on the next shot) nothing like the exit seen from the passage they have climbed through, et cetera. I was waiting for Doug McClure to appear at any moment. In some ways I wish he had.

The leader of the Russians pursuing Quatermain is a shoddily created stereotypical character who just shoots at everything.

Swayzee does quite well as the sad father, returned to London, who is unable to obtain the custody of his son. Swayzee should stick to that sort of thing. He is not able to carry the part of a courageous gentleman with a stout heart, experience of life, and sense of fair play.

4 out of 10. Barely


I missed the first 10 or so minutes of the movie but don't think watching it from the beginning would've made any difference. I found the film extremely boring and was disappointed with the acting. I remember Patrick Swayze and some of the other actors (Roy Marsden, for instance) in outstanding roles but they all disappointed here due to a very weak script. "Kind Solomon's Mines"...the very short part of the movie inside the "mines" was about as exciting as watching paint dry and I doubt that even a pre-school kid would've been spell-bound by watching the fight of the "warriors". The entire movie was reminiscent of a cheaply produced American TV series. Give me Indiana Jones any day!


Oh dear. Some of the best talent in British TV made this serial, and so I can only assume that they were working under incredible time pressure, and had to settle for first takes of many scenes.

There ARE some frightening scenes in this Highland mystery (mostly when the "monster" attacks and we see it from his point of view), but I'm afraid that I found most of the story unintentionally funny ! Such as the moment when the hero discovers a dismembered corpse on a golf course: Oh look, there's a hand ... oh, and there's another hand over there ... hmm this is a bit puzzling ...

For many years fans of British cult TV shows campaigned to have this serial released on VHS or DVD, but the BBC always said no. Now I think I understand why !


This film was made in Saskatchewan and Manitoba Parks and returned the world eye again to what little of the "Wild Western Canada" is left. When Archie began to write his stories for the papers; the thought of the day was to tame the wilderness and convert/absorb the First Nation Peoples.

The film puts forward and asks the question; why would a well-educated, obviously talented Englishman become an Indian?

 Archie, as an English boy dreams about becoming something but grasping the full meaning of that dream is unique and priceless - no mater what it is. Sounds like a famous puppet story doesn't it.

 In my opinion, I saw Archie become my living image of the "Cigar store Indian" a very wooden character and not real at all - very well done acting on the part of Mr. Brosnan. He also portrayed the wild Indian in the dance scene for the tourist. The fullness and or reality of it weren't realized till he met and married his wife, Annie.

 Annie pushed Archie in a direction that would bring him to the forefront of the Englishman's world stage, not as himself but Grey Owl -an Canadian Native of the wilderness frontier.

 This is the closest Archie get to becoming the noble savage prototype.

 Mr. Brosnan's interpretation as well as the directors is both well done. I have watched documentaries on Grey Owl and I think this is a good big screen movie to add to my collection.

Spoiler - I thought the final scenes with Archie going to meet the Grand Council of Chiefs was a great a great moment in the film.

 Very beautiful Canadian lake scenery and real "Grey Owl" locations.


James Bond in the wilderness? Well, that's the way it looks: Pierce Brosnan is after all best known as Bond in "Tommorrow Never Dies" (1997) and "Golden Eye" (1995) - both shot prior to this release. Frankly, the film's two leads are both badly miscast, with Brosnan turning in the marginally more convincing performance, and with Annie Galipeau (as Pony, Grey Owl's love interest) having to battle with carelessly-written dialogue.

The two aunts, on the other hand are perfect. But the film is not about aunts. It is about the wilds of the Canadian wilderness. And while the photography may be pretty, there is no grit to the harsh reality of living in the wilds. Annie Galipeau, as Pony, just fails to be convincing, unfortunately, because I really wanted to believe in her. She was a relatively inexperienced twenty-year-old on this film, and it could have worked, but Richard Attenborough was maybe just not tough enough on her. He makes her look vulnerable, which of course she is.. but in the wrong sort of way.

But one thing for sure, she appears picture-perfect throughout. But mascara and eyebrow thickener in the wilderness? It just doesn't fit, especially as she only ever seems to walk forest trials with Bond (sorry, Grey Owl), and use photo-ops for kissing close-ups.

I've lived with forest people in the Pacific North West, and they simply don't look this pretty and stay so sweet while fighting for survival. Which brings me to another point: the film fails to evoke the period in which it is set: the 1930s. I put the blame here largely on a lack-lustre script that is keen on preaching at the expense of dramatic arc, plot points and those small details that can evoke period through action.

William Nicholson wrote the screenplay, and his latest offering, "Elizabeth, the Golden Age" opened three days ago, so I do hope there is an improvement.

Yes, I've read the comments others have posted, but I'm not convinced. A lot of potential, but mishandled and even maybe ill-conceived. If it had had a religious film, it would have been panned, but because it preaches environmentalism, the film remains somewhat above criticism, since it is "politically correct." Sorry, for all that, I don't buy it. Amen.


Images are great and reflect well the landscapes of Canada. The story was, on the other side, quite boring; To my eyes it was a love story in the woods just like Titanic was a love story on a boat. I did not feel that Grey Owl was great environmentalist. I usually like Lord Attenborough but this one was ... bad.


It's a good movie if you plan to watch lots of landscapes and animals, like an animal documentary. And making Pierce Brosnan an indian make you wonder 'Does all those people don't recognize if someone isn't indian at plain sight?'


!!!!! POSSIBLE SPOILER !!!!!

You`d think a story involving Archie Grey Owl - An Englishman posing as a red indian - would have a massive amount of humour involved . In fact I`d say the only way to treat a film like this where a remarkable man cons the gullible public is to treat it as a comedy . However Richard Attenborough commits something akin to a crime by making GREY OWL a serious drama . Worse , he`s made an extremely dire film too . Pierce Brosnan lacks the charisma needed for the title role and the romantic subplot between Grey Owl and Pony ( Played by the equally wooden Annie Gaupeau ) lacks any type of on screen chemistry . But to be fair to the cast their not helped with the script which fails to portray Archie as the cheeky chappy he is of fooling everyone into believing he`s a native American . The producers and screenwriter have made the major error of having the film centre around the plot twist of Archie being an Englishman - That`s why I wrote " Possible spoiler " it`s not actually revealed untill late in the film that the title character is English , but it`s obvious that everyone who viewed this movie knew that beforehand hence there`s absolutely no surprise involved.<br /><br />Yes I do agree with everyone that the scenery is lovely and that it has a deep ecological message which isn`t actually a new concept . Theodore Roosevelt was the first important environmentalist of the 20th century if truth be told . And it should also be remembered that with the exception of SOYLENT GREEN ( And possibly THE TWO TOWERS if you want to class it as having a green message ) that there hasn`t actually been a great ecological film . In fact most environmentally concious films suck and that includes GREY OWL , a film that unsurprisingly had a serious problem in finding a distributor


While flipping through the channels on a late Saturday night, my friends and I stumbled across this film. First of all, Irish actor Pierce Brosnan as a Native American? Seriously?! His accent was breaking through so much, although his character was apparently Scottish. Next, I was stunned to find that this film was made after he had already played James Bond/Agent 007 at least twice. This movie plays up the stereotypes, with the inspiring professor figure. The girl who played Pony should be paid to keep her mouth shut. And, this film won an award? I cannot believe it. Brosnan is an attractive man, but we seriously wanted to gauge our eyes out after watching this for just 10 seconds. We switched from "Kicking and Screaming" to this, and we wanted to switch back. We watched the 1995 children's classic "The Indian in the Cupboard" earlier in the night, which also discussed the Iroquois. The following line represents our desire to run away: "Take me outside, earth grasper." From "Grey Owl": "If you don't like it, you don't have to watch."


may contain spoilers!!!! so i watched this movie last night on LMN (Lifetime Movie Network) which is NOT known for showing quality movies. THIS MOVIE IS AWFUL! i am still amazed that i watched the entire thing, as it was terrible. could this movie contain any more stereotypes? (harping jewish mother who wants son to be a doctor, catholic family with priest sons, big big crucifixes in every room shown in the catholic family's house, mexican whores, "bad" guy who is really a softie at heart, incredibly bad country accents) GAG!!!! i was at first intrigued by the fact that i had never heard of this movie and after seeing that cheryl pollack and corin nemec were in it, i decided to stay awake until 4am to watch it. anyway, the only redeeming thing about this movie is madchen amick's beauty. i suppose pollack's and nemec's acting is okay, but they have a horrid script to work with. unlike the other reviewer who commented on the lack of texan accents (the movie is supposed to take place in austin and very few people there have a twang) i think that the accents were there (in supporting characters like mary margaret's date and john) and were unnecessary. they were also very very bad. i am so very tired of hollywood "southern" accents that sound nothing like the area where the accent is supposed to be from. and since it was supposed to take place in austin and shooting movies there in 1991 would not have been expensive, i fully expected there to be familiar shots of the town: the beautiful capitol building, the UT tower lit up for a winning football game, etc. none of these things were there. also, it takes about 5-6 hours to drive to mexico from austin. at one point in the movie, michael and his posse take off for mexico to lose their virginities and are able to drive off when it is dark (during the summer and early fall it doesn't get dark in austin until 9pm or so), spend time in mexico getting drunk and having sex with mexican (is there any other kind?) whores, and then return to austin by dawn. while this is theoretically possible it is NOT very likely. and if anyone has started school in the hill country (usually the third week of august, but may have been in september in 1960) they know that unless they want to pass out from heat stroke they DO NOT wear their letter jackets!!!!! in august and september in austin and the surrounding areas it is 90+ degrees. only people with no body temperature would be stupid enough to wear sweaters or letter jackets on the first day of school. all in all, a very bad made for tv movie experience.


Although this film was made before Dogme emerged as the predominant method of filmmaking, and before digital triumphed over -- strike that. You get the point. This 1991 masterpiece clearly anticipated those developments. Corin Nemec is just outstanding as the ne'er do well author and narrator. The pace is slow, but elegantly so, because the cinematography is so beautiful. Record it the next time its on T.V., because I guarantee you'll never see a better nostalgia rip-off made-for- T.V. movie. Direct-to-video never felt so good!


The British claymation series putting "witty" conversations taped from "average" people in the mouths of "cute" fanciful creatures at least had the advantage for non-British viewers of seeming droll and the kind of rarefied cultured humor you couldn't get on U.S. television. Someone made the mistake of PUTTING it on U.S. television.

Sort of like the sadly miscast American version of the sublime Brit-com COUPLING which died in a month on NBC when the same basic scripts didn't "translate" from British English to American English, what seemed droll and cultured (and just a BIT dull) in England, comes across in CREATURE COMFORTS, the American Version, as simply boredom with puppets. There's no through plot-line, no characters and after one and a half episodes watched (of the three ultimately aired), no reason to suffer through more.

The only positive thing to be said about the new summer series and the mercifully brief run it had is that the claymation is at least professionally done and coming as a set-up for the single worst show on the CBS schedule, The New Adventures of Old Christine (or "how to be a HORRIBLE mother - or person - in one interminable, unfunny lesson"), kids who wanted to stay up past their bedtime happily ran to bed rather than sit through this show, and the adults could wait to tune in until 9pm when "Two and A Half Men" (guilty pleasure) and "How I Met Your Mother" (actual quality writing) come on.


One question: Why? First off, the premise is not funny or engaging at all. They use taped interviews, and take the audio to animate ite with animals speaking the parts. First off, the interviews aren't funny or entertaining to begin with, and even if they were, I am sure they would be a lot more entertaining being viewed as they are originally, without being turned into cartoons. How does that add any hilarity to it? I turned on CBS's Monday night sitcom line-up, (which has become a regular way for me to relax after stressful Monday workdays) and found this on. Of course, the sitcom line-up would be reruns anyway, being summer, but seeing those episodes over again would have been more entertaining. I tried to give "CC" a chance. I really did. When it started, I figured, well, maybe it will be funny. Nope. And then it kept going. It was a long half hour.

And I can almost see if there was a purpose, if the interviews were shown in their entirety, and had points to them. But no, it was just one-line clips, cut and pasted together really quick. It was like a horrible dreadful version of Cartoon Network's "Robot Chicken." I wasn't a fan of CBS' now-cancelled sitcom "The Class." WHile that was on, it was one half-hour of the line-up I would struggle through. But if it came down to me deciding a whole season of that or three more episodes of "Creatures"....let's just say I'd take the "Class." Considering it's been a couple hours since it aired, and I come on here to see I am the first to comment...I guess that's a good sign that nobody watched it, and that it won't last much longer. Cartoon roadkill.


I'm not sure what HK movies the other reviewers have been watching, but Enter the Eagles is nowhere near the top of the heap in HK action. Michael "Fitz" Wong should be glad he can get acting jobs in HK, because he couldn't act his way out of a wet paper bag in English. Shannon Lee looks good and is a fantastic fighter (even better with the leg fighting than her dad), but her acting skills are also sub-par. In fact, all the English dialog (90% of the movie--even more than in Gen-Y Cops) is so bad that I switched to Mandarin audio just to spare myself the misery of the bad dialog delivery and the redundancy of the English subs. Sure, there are some decent gunfights (but nothing we haven't already seen before) and good cinematography, but the cheesy visual effects really spoil the action.

That said, it's worth the price of admission to watch Shannon and Benny "The Jet" Urquidez go at it. Spectacular, and almost worth watching the rest of the movie for.

Finally, you might notice some scenes that seem "familiar" to you, notably a shootout at an outdoor market (think Matrix) and Fitz diving out of a helicopter wearing black fatigues (think MI:2). Guess someone thought at least a few things in this flick were worth ripping off.


The movie has a good start portraying an interesting and strong Shannon Lee and introduces two very simpathetic side characters through the first half. But later something happens and all the sudden Shannon turns into this straight faced, second hand bad girl and the movie gets lost in it's own context. The second half lacks any kind of charisma and is full of clichés, bad acting, a horrible plot and even worse stunt coordination. Not to mention the horrible actors they chose for the chechen mafia gang.

"Game of Death 2" was bad and clownified Bruce, but his daughter tops it making an even bigger embarrassment of herself than the double who played Bruce Lee back then. I truly believe that she can do much better than this and I hope she participates in a better production next time.

If you are a real hard core action fan and don't care about quality go ahead and see this movie. I was personally looking forward to it but just got terribly disappointed.


Wow. Watching this film today, you can't help but be appalled by the writing of this film. Spencer Tracy and Loretta Young play a couple who, in modern times, might be featured on "The Jerry Springer Show"--as they have a sick and abusive relationship...and inexplicably, the writers appear to be endorsing it!

The film begins with a hungry and homeless Loretta being shown the ropes by the poor but very resourceful Spencer Tracy. He shows her how by conniving you can do very well with little money and takes her home to his shack to stay. It's never clear whether or not they marry--and considering it's a Pre-Code film, you can assume they aren't even though they are cohabiting. Their relationship is very strange...and rather sick. While you can see that Tracy cares about her by his actions, he is verbally abusive and a total jerk---and Young comes running back for more like some sort of dog. He calls her "skinny" or "ugly" and these are, in a sick way, his way of using endearments! Later, when he starts fooling around with another woman (Glenda Farrell), she tells her friend that if that's what he wants, it's okay with her!!! It sure smacks of a sado-masochistic relationship and you can't help but feel a bit horrified. Sure, he doesn't hit her but the relationship is very abusive. To show how sick it is, when Young gets pregnant, she tells him "...it's your baby and it's mine, but you don't need to worry, I'll take all the blame for it"!! Yikes! Doesn't this all seem a bit like looking through a peephole into a sick and dysfunctional home?! Later, in a case of art imitating life, Tracy proves what sort of man he is and disappears. After all, he can't be burdened with a baby--even if it's his. But, he changes his mind and decides to return home. Wow...that's bit of him! And, when he returns, he's nasty and acts like IF he stays, he isn't obligated to care for the kid!! And, she tells him he's "a free man...free as a bird"! Wow, I was almost in tears at this tender moment...NOT! Soon, this crazy pair are married...and, naturally, Young is depressed because he seems to be staying as long as it suits him--not because of any love or sense of responsibility. So how can you salvage anything with this sort of sick characters? What would you do? Well, as for the writers, they have Tracy soon commit a robbery to help pay for the brat! The romantic aspects of the film are underwhelming to say the least! During the robbery, Tracy behaves like a chump--doing almost nothing to take precautions not to get caught--like he was secretly hoping to get sent to prison. And, to show what sort of nice guy he is, the guy he tries to rob is one of his best friends.

While there's more to the film, the bottom line is that Tracy is a jerk and Young is an idiot in the film. Despite both being very good actors, there's absolutely no way they could make anything of this crap the writers produced. Nice music, nice sets, good acting...and a script that is 100% poo. How the film is currently rated 7.4 is beyond me and I wonder how anyone can ignore the pure awfulness of the characters. A horrible misfire that somehow didn't destroy the careers of those involved.

Oh, and if you wonder if Loretta EVER gets a backbone in this film or plays a person who is the least bit strong, the answer is NO! By the end, she's learned nothing and hasn't changed one whit for the better.

They sure don't make films like they used to...and in this case...thank God!


The original Lensman series of novels is a classic of the genre. It's pure adventure SF with some substance (here and there) and I've always wondered why Hollywood hasn't filmed it verbatim because it's just the kind of thing they love: massive explosions, super-weapons, uber-heroics, hero gets the girl, aliens (great CGI potential), good versus evil in the purest form, etc etc. Instead (and bear in mind I'm a Japan-o-phile and anime lover) we get this horrendous kiddies movie that rips the guts out of the story, mixes in Star-Wars (ironic as the latter ripped off the books occasionally) pastiches and dumbs the whole thing down to 'Thundercats' level. To see Kimball Kinnison, the epitome of the Galactic Patrol officer and second stage Lensman portrayed as a small boy is pitiful (etc). I just can't understand why the makers did this because they obviously had the rights to the story and could have made far more money (FAR!) by telling straight. It makes no sense.


I rented the dubbed-English version of Lensman, hoping that since it came from well-known novels it would have some substance. While there were hints of substance in the movie, it mostly didn't rise above the level of kiddie cartoon. Maybe the movie was a bad adaptation of the book, or it lost a lot in the dubbed version. Or maybe even the source novels were lightweight. But for whatever reason, there wasn't much there.

I noticed lots of details that were derivative, sloppy, poorly dramatized, or otherwise deficient. Some examples: The opening scenes looked borrowed from the 2001 "star gate" scene and the Star Wars image of hyperspace. The robot on the harvester looked like an anthropomorphized "R2-D2".

It starts out trying to borrow its comic relief style of Star Wars, but mercifully (since the humor doesn't work) gives up on comedy and plays it serious. In that sense, it's superior to the Star Wars franchise, which started with a clever sense of humor, and eventually deteriorated to Jar-Jar's annoying silliness.

The agricultural details were apparently drawn by someone who had never seen a farm. The harvester was driving through the unharvested middle of a field, dumping silage onto unharvested crops, rather than working from one side to the other and dumping the silage onto already-harvested rows or into a truck. Corn (maize) was pouring out the grain chute, but the farm lands were drawn like a wheat field.

When it was time for Kim's father had to face his fate, there wasn't any dramatic weight to the scene. That could have been partly the fault of the English-language voice actor, but the drawings didn't show much weight either. Kim's reactions in that scene were similarly unconvincing.

Similarly, when a character named Henderson was killed, Chris showed very little reaction, even though they were apparently supposed to have been close. (Henderson's death is no spoiler; his name isn't revealed until his death scene.) She seems to promptly forget him. Someone's expression of sympathy shows more feeling than she does. I think the voice actor deserves most of the blame in that case; there's at least a hint of feeling in the drawings of Chris.

On several occasions, villains fail to accomplish their orders. A villain leader often punishes those failures with miserable deaths. I can't say whether that's lifted from Star Wars, or if that comes from an earlier source -- possibly the Lensman books.

There's a scene where a space ship crash-lands. As it plunges toward the ground, parts are break off the ship. But so many pieces are fall off that there should be nothing left of it by the time it lands.

While in most cases Chris seems like a competent, tough space hero, there's a scene where she shrieks like an incompetent damsel in distress. Someone tough enough to get over Henderson's death so quickly should at least be able to shout, "help, it's got me and I can't reach my gun!" instead of just shrieking.

The character with the most personality (almost too much at times) is D.J. Bill. He sounded like Wolfman Jack, the D.J. in American Graffiti. I wonder if he's as well-voiced in the original language.

Two planets in the movie exploded. The explosions were unimpressive, and appeared to owe a lot of inspiration to Star Wars. To its credit, however, the cause of the explosion was completely unlike the Death Star's primary weapon. The dialog had a good, interesting explanation for the cause. Many other explosions in the movie did look good, just not the planetary explosions.

Some of the sound effects are very cheesy, as if borrowed from a late 1970s video game. Some of the images look like primitive video games, and some influence from Tron is visible too. On the other hand, the sound effects are often pretty decent, although that emphasizes the cheesy-sounding parts. The art is good too, particularly when it stays away from the often cheesy-looking computer graphics.

Finally, there's the story. If a movie tells a good story, it can get away with a lot of production shortcomings. But the plot here was pretty lightweight. A naïve boy tries to help someone on a crippled space ship, and acquires a great power he doesn't understand. He and his band of very virtuous companions struggle against a powerful, unredeemably evil enemy. He makes friends, learns about his special power, and grows into a young man. If he is persistent and virtuous enough, he might even defeat the evil enemy. Details along the way can make such a story rise above the simple outline, but there's very little more than that in this movie.

In the end, it's just a kiddie cartoon. But then, since it looks like the primary intended audience is older children, maybe it doesn't need to be anything more than that.


[I saw this movie once late on a public tv station, so I don't know if it's on video or not.]

This is one of the "Baby Burlesks" (sic) that Shirley Temple did in the early 1930s. It is hard to believe that anyone would let their daughter be in this racy little film which today might just be considered this side of "kiddie porn".

Shirley Temple stars in a cast which probably has an average age of 5. They are all in diapers, and are in a saloon which serves milk instead of alcohol. The "cash" is in the form of lollipops.

Shirley playing a "femme fatale" sashays up to the bar and talks to soldiers who make suggestive comments about her (!). But Shirley doesn't need really their lollipops/cash because her purse is full of ones from other "men".

Meanwhile a little black boy does a suggestive dance on a nearby table (!).

What a strange film . . . infants using racy dialogue playing adult roles in a saloon. Who thought up this stuff any way?


This is a horrible little film--and unfortunately, the company that made this short made several others. The short is essentially a one-joke idea that wasn't funny to begin with and may also offend you. It certainly made me uncomfortable watching very young children (most appeared about 2 years-old) cavorting about and pretending to be adults--in this case, a dancehall girl and bar room patrons. It's the sort of humor that you might be forced to laugh at from your own kids if they pretended to be adults, but I can't see anyone WANTING to see this--especially when a very young Shirley Temple is dressed in a rather slinky outfit and acts like a vamp!! And then, other kids act like adults in some rather adult situations. At the time, I am sure they were not trying to appeal to pedophiles, but when looking at it today, that is what immediately comes to mind! Because of this, this boring film ALSO creeped me out and I hope to never see it again!! Pretty strange and pretty awful.


I don't know why this conduct was ever tolerated in the movie business! This movie (short) is gross (to say the least)! It is a bunch of 5-7 year old children wearing diapers with big bobby pins, acting like adults (and too much so!). However, it is interesting because it is a good example of how "the good old days" may not have been so good after all! (Thank GOD we have laws against this kind of material now!)

{This is one short from the "Shirley Temple Festival"}


While on a vacation at the beach, red-haired brothers Michael McGreevey and Billy Mumy (as Arthur and Petey Loomis) find a seal. The lads christen their critter "Sammy", and spend summertime frolicking with the sandy sea lion. When it's time to go home, the boys begin to suffer separation anxiety. Young Mr. McGreevey decides they can't take "Sammy" back to "Disneyland" er, "Gatesville" - but, young Mr. Mumy packs him anyway. At home, they try to hide "the Way-out Seal" from adults, and, of course hijacks ensue!

**** Sammy - The Way-out Seal, pt 1 (10/28/62) Norman Tokar ~ Michael McGreevey, Bill Mumy, Robert Culp


Strange... I like all this movie crew and dark humor movies; but didn't like this one at all! It's awful, horrible and surely not funny at all. Pity cannot do a whole movie plot, disgust either. And it was really boring. Long empty moments fills the movie; it could have been removed. It should have been in another shorter format, surely. Maybe i expected too much from the crew - like saving the movie lol -. It's also filled with overused clichés of characters and situations... I don't get it why people liked it... "Poetry", "hope"; nope 'mam, didn't see anything like that! ^^ All in all, it's empty and crude, pitiful and hopeless. Oh darn this one........


I had high expectations for this indie having perused the many thumbs up reviews. Then....

Here's my additional 'two cents' to the already posted, excellent 'lost in translation' review. Premise: Morgan is 'stuck' in a dusty small town where he meets lovely Scarlet who is working in the local supermarket. Can Morgan help elevate the lovely Scarlet from her trailer trash life?

Realistic dialog? NOT. How about that shopping in Target. First, Freeman looks at the Target interior as if he's walked into Harrods. Then, he's bowled over at a T-shirt rack confirming he has NEVER been in any store visited by lovely Scarlet. Morgan is detached from any and all aspects of Scarlet's reality and is portrayed as gleeful in his ignorance of everyone and everything in Scarlet's life.

One reviewer enjoyed the Scarlet and ex-hubby fight scene where her survival, a car in this instance, requires she physically attack her ex hubbie. Does Freeman run to her defense....naw...he's cowering in disbelief and totally incapable of dealing with such a blunt aspect of her very real, sorry lot in life.

Freeman's character believes a car wash and new very revealing, tight fitting blouse is the key to Scarlet's job interview. Another sign that Freeman is CLUELESS. Freeman's endless 'stage talk' where all aspects of Scarlet's reality are reduced to one or another stage related Freeman experience was irritating.

Freeman is right to emphasize that Scarlet is young with her future ahead of her and then conveniently ignores the brick walls she faces vis a vis: uneducated, no white collar skills or experience, VERY POOR, no family support and a lifetime of low self esteem. Scarlet learns such life lessons from Freeman as: some people pay $100 for a T-shirt and a revealing blouse may open doors in lieu of her lack of education and white collar job skills. In the end Freeman offers Scarlet little more than strange diversion with a 'star',not even paying for gas for Scarlet's dead of night return to her unchanged life in a town the name of which Freeman cares not to know.


After I watched this movie, I came to IMDb and read some of the reviews, which compared it to Lost In Translation LITE. When I read that I immediately could see the reviewers point.

This movie was a poor attempt at a similar theme. Interestingly, the format of the movie is nearly identical, but the PACING is incredibly different. "10 Items" rushes the viewer through the 1-day time line of the movie, whereas the better-planned "Lost In..." seems to stretch out over a few long days.

I'm sure some people will see this because it has Morgan Freeman, and will be disappointed. It seems his better roles now-a-days are supporting roles in big blockbusters, rather than leading roles in sub-$10mil limited release movies and indie films.


I love Morgan Freeman. Paz Vega is an attractive, appealing and talented actress. I'm sure that this would have been a good movie had anything happened in it. Nothing does. It's short (less than 90 minutes). It was 75 minutes too long. After an hour of frustration, I scanned through the remaining 20-odd minutes. Excruciating.

Freeman plays an actor - who hasn't worked in a while - researching a part that he might play, as a checkout clerk in a supermarket. He visits the supermarket where she works. Nothing happens. She decides to give him a ride home and they go to an Arby's, a Target, a car wash. Nothing happens. They converse about their lives. Nothing happens. Ever.

I don't get it. But I also don't get the Bill Murray flicks "Lost In Translation" and "Broken Flowers". If you like those movies, maybe you'll like this. Lots of people find movies like this whimsical, charming, or - for reasons that escape me - find the dialog fascinating. A common device in movies of this ilk is to have a LONG take of stillness/silence after an actor delivers a line that's supposed to be meaningful. We know it's meaningful because it's followed by two minutes of nothing on the screen. Sorry, I must be a philistine. I don't get it. To me, these kinds of movies aren't funny, or charming, or thought-provoking. They're just boring. Why? Because there's no comedy. No drama. No tension. No laughs. No suspense. No action. Nothing to watch. In short, none of the things I go to the movies for. I can be bored for free. I see oddball/quirky characters in real life. I go to Target, and fast-food restaurants, and car-washes. These elements do not a movie make, even if stars are doing this stuff. I pay to be entertained.

If you're crazy about Morgan Freeman and just like to hear him ramble on about nothing, have fun. If you wanna drool over Paz Vega, you can look and listen to her. But nothing happens, I promise. A total snoozefest.


While watching this movie, I came up with a script for a movie, called "The Making of 10 Items or Less":

Producer: I've got good news and bad news. The good news is, we can get Morgan Freeman!

Writer: That's great! But what's the bad news?

Producer: We can only afford to hire him for one day. I guess we'll have to get someone else.

Writer: So we hire him for one day. A movie is an hour and a half long. A work day is eight hours long. I fail to see a problem.

Producer: But... he'll have to spend time getting into character.

Writer: So we have him play a character who is essentially himself.

Producer: But he'll still need to understand his motivation and all that. You're not saying we have him play a big-name actor that's doing a low-budget movie, are you?

Writer: Why not?

Producer: That's ridiculous! But fine, at least we'll have Morgan Freeman in our movie. And I guess we have to set the movie in Los Angeles too.

Writer: Of course.

Producer: This script is a load of crap. We'd better make money on this. Just in case, have Morgan Freeman's character plug Wal-Mart or Target or one of those stores, so at least someone will want to sell the DVDs.

Writer: Sure thing!

Producer: Wait a second... what's this about a tiny bodega with a "ten items or less" express lane?

Writer: Oh, I guess that is pretty weird. But we can't change the title now!

I doubt my script actually bears much resemblance to reality, but then neither did "10 Items or Less". This is a case of good acting, but bad writing, and I hate to see it happen. When watching an independent movie, you expect it to try to convey some sort of message. I think they might have been trying for the tired old "don't let anything hold you back" message that has been done to death in much better films. In any case, with "10 Items or Less", the only message I got was "Look! Look at Morgan Freeman!"


This movie was great the first time I saw it, when it was called "Lost in Translation." But somehow Bill Murray turned into an eccentric black man played by Morgan Freeman, Scarlett Johansson turned into a cranky Latino woman played by Paz Vega, and Tokyo, Japan turned into Carson, California. Instead of meaningful conversations and silence we enjoyed in Translation, we get meaningless blabbering in 10 Items that verges on annoying. Instead of characters that were pensive and introspective as in Translation, we get characters that spew pointless advice on topics they have no clue about. How can a character that wears hundred dollar T-shirts and has never been inside a Target department store expect to give advice to a working-class woman on how to prepare for a job interview as an administrative assistant? Don't think that stops him. If he isn't giving her clothing advice, he's telling her what she should eat. The most annoying part of the movie for me was how supposedly they were in a hurry to make an appointment, and yet the characters keep finding time to run another errand, be it washing the car, stopping at Arby's, or just laying around to list off their 10 Items or Less lists of things they love and hate. I kept wanting to yell at them saying, "Didn't you say you had somewhere to be? What the heck are doing? A minute ago you were practically late, now you're eating roast beef and pondering your lives!" Until I saw this movie, I never truly understood how something could "insist upon itself," but I think this movie does exactly that, and undeservedly so. The dialogue makes the characters cheesy and unsympatheticwith the exception that I felt sorry for both of the actors for having signed onto this project.


A still famous but decadent actor (Morgan Freeman) has not filmed for four years. When he is invited to participate in a new project, he asks the clumsy cousin of the director to drop him in a poor Latin neighborhood in Carlson to research the work of the manager of a small supermarket. He sees the gorgeous Spanish cashier Scarlet (Paz Vega) and he becomes attracted with her ability. His driver never returns to catch him and Scarlet gives a ride to the actor. But first she has a job interview for the position of secretary in a construction company and the actor helps her to be prepared; then they spend the afternoon together having a pleasant time.

I am a big fan of Morgan Freeman and Paz Vega. However, the pointless "10 Items or Less" is absolutely disappointing. This low-budget movie does not seem to have a storyline, and is supported by the chemistry and improvisations of Morgan Freeman and Paz Vega and actually nothing happens along 82 minutes. The ambiguous open conclusion is simply ridiculous, with the character of Morgan Freeman returning to his silver spoon world and telling the simple worker that they would never see each other again. Was he afraid to have a love affair with her and destroy his perfect world with his family? Or was a clash of classes, and he realizes that his fancy neighborhood would not be adequate to a simple worker from the lower classes? My vote is four.

Title (Brazil): "Um Astro em Minha Vida" ("A Star in My Life")


Not really spoilers in my opinion, but I wanted to cover myself, nevertheless. As the executive producer, Morgan Freeman wants the audience to ignore the numerous absurdities of his character in 10 Items Or Less, a movie with an intentional indie-feel, and just be absorbed in the mentor/be-all-that-you-can-be theme. He plays a alternate universe, semi-washed up version of the real Morgan Freeman, who is chauffeured in an old Econovan by a kid all the way into Carson, CA from Brentwood to research his next movie role. Why Carson, is a mystery to So. Cal residents. He could have saved the trip and gone anywhere in the San Fernando Valley and found the same elements. Paz Vega is pretty to watch, a cross between Salma Hayek and Penelope Cruz, playing a disgruntled grocery checker at a large but slow local market that apparently is the ultimate source for Moragn Freeman's research. His character is only known as "Him" to allude to how actors are regarded when encountered in real life by average people-"Psst, that's 'him,' etc. Unfortunately, I was too distracted that Him had all kinds of worldly wisdom and advice but had no reliable return back to his home in Brentwood, carried no cash or debit card, or had the wisdom to keep a cell phone with him. If one has such a high opinion of their self that they believe they possess an answer to everything like Him does, then I gotta see cash and a Blackberry which displays intelligence and good survival instincts to preserve that big ego which Him definitely has. Nothing really happens in this movie. I don't believe that either of the main character's were substantially changed by their encounter with each other. It flirts with the idea of adultery, but then that thought fizzles. This to me was similar to Steve Martin's Shopgirl, without the sexual affair. It was self-indulgent for Freeman and unconvincing to the audience.


I did not expect a lot from this movie, after the terrible "Life is a Miracle". It turns out that this movie is ten times worse than "Life ...". I have impression that director/writer is just joking with the audience: " let me see how much emptiness can you (audience) sustain". Dialogues are empty, ... scenario is minimalistic. In few moments, photography is really nice. Few sarcastic lines are semi-funny, but it is hard to genuinely laugh during this "comedy". I've laughed to myself for being able to watch the movie until the end. If you can lift yourself above this director's fiasco, ... you will find good acting of few legends (Miki Manojlovic, Aleksandar Bercek), and very good performance of Emir's son Stribor Kusturica.

In short: too bad for such a great director ! Emir Kusturica is still young and should be making top-rated movies. Instead, he chooses to do this low-budget just-for-my-private theater movie, with arrogant attitude toward the world trends and negligence toward his old fans.


First of all, this plot is way overdone - girl wants to make it, everyone loves her, snobby girl intervenes, all looks lost, girl pulls through, everyone loves her again etc. Throw in the fitting in thing, an attractive male crushing on the heroine, plus single-parent troubles and it's so predictable that you can practically recite along with it.

Second of all, I really hate how they keep on dissing classical music. They send out the message that everyone involved in classical music is uptight and snobby and close-minded - in fact, I don't recall the quote exactly, but I remember at one point in the movie, Holly says, "Why do they have to be so uptight...so classical?" It's really insulting how label classical music in this way.

Third, I've went over it dozens of times, but the only reason that I can think of for making this movie is to promote Britney Spears. there just isn't any point at all.

And oh yeah, while the actress who portrayed Holly (I'm not sure whether that was really her singing or not) had a reasonably good voice, it wasn't as amazing as they were making it out to be - especially when she was belting. She was oversupporting the whole time.

1/10 stars.


This is no doubt one of the worst movies I have ever seen. This makes your run of the mill TV movie look like Reservoir Dogs. Based on a book by the one and only Britney Spears and her mother this is trash with nothing bar a reasonable performance from Virginia Madsen (I hope you got paid well) to save it. The story of a red neck country gill who wins a scholarship in a prestigious music school is little but a vehicle to pedal Ms Spears pants music to the consumer and to generally agree that low brow must be the way. There is nothing good going on here with all the beats as predictable as night following day. Never ever again.


hello boys and girls... this isn't your regular movie review, because this is going to be the cold. hard. truth. are you serious? this movie sucked so many balls i couldn't keep them out of my mouth! they might as well have sprayed me in the eye with monkey semen. you'd need one seriously large douche to pump out all the vaginal fluid from this movie.

the plot was very lacking. the actors were terrible. i rewound the dance number several times and had to pause it even more because i was choking on my own spit. do boys, everyone!

peace R&H besties4lyf


EXTREMITIES

Aspect ratio: 1.85:1

Sound format: Mono

A woman turns the tables on a would-be rapist when he mounts an assault in her home, and is forced to decide whether to kill him or inform the police, in which case he could be released and attack her again.

Exploitation fans who might be expecting another rough 'n' ready rape fantasy in the style of DAY OF THE WOMAN (1978) will almost certainly be disappointed by EXTREMITIES. True, Farrah Fawcett's character is subjected to two uncomfortably prolonged assaults before gaining the upper hand on her attacker (a suitably slimy James Russo), but scriptwriter William Mastrosimone and director Robert M. Young take these unpleasant scenes only so far before unveiling the dilemma which informs the moral core of this production. Would their final solution hold up in a court of law? Maybe...

Based on a stage play which reportedly left its actors battered and bruised after every performance, the film makes no attempt to open up the narrative and relies instead on a confined setting for the main action. Acing and technical credits are fine, though Fawcett's overly subdued performance won't play effectively to viewers who might be relying on her to provide an outlet for their outraged indignation.


This movie is terrible. The suspense is spent waiting for a point. There isn't much of one.

Aside from a few great lines ( "I found a tooth in my apartment" ), and the main characters dedication to killing himself, it's a collection of supposedly eerie sounds.


This is possibly the most boring movie in history. I was really looking forward to seeing this movie given the actor/director Roman Polanski. I think I would rather see the Three Amigos than ever watch this movie again. It promptly went from the DVD player straight into the garbage. My apologies to those of you who apparently liked this movie however you probably liked New Coke as well. I am at a loss to see why anyone would have enjoyed this movie, it is slow, dull and has no real plot. You wait for 105 minutes for the movie to get started. I understand this was made in 1976 however this was an era of bad television all around. Thank god disco and Three's Company are gone along with stop sign glasses and the Bay City Rollers. Oh well just my thoughts.


This movie was worth five punches on my "hurter card". I saw this while stationed in Virginia in the mid '70's. I saw it alone so I was not distracted while I watched it. It sucked. It was the most ridiculous, total waste of celluloid I've ever seen.

I know that others who have reviewed this movie have thought that it was awesome. I offer you this: if it was so awesome what was it's box office take? End of discussion.


It's unlikely that anyone except those who adore silent films will appreciate any of the lyrical camera-work and busy (but scratchy) background score that accompanies this 1933 release. Although sound came into general use in 1928, there are no more than fifty words spoken to tell the story of a woman, unhappily married, who deserts her husband for a younger man after a romantic interlude in the woods.

The most vividly photographed scene has the jealous husband giving a lift to the young man for a ride into town, proceeding to drive normally until he realizes the man is his wife's lover. In a frenzy of jealousy, he drives at top speed toward a railroad crossing but changes his mind at the last moment, losing his nerve. It's probably the most tension-filled scene in the otherwise decidedly slow-moving and obviously contrived story.

HEDY LAMARR is given the sort of close-up treatment lavished on Marlene Dietrich by her discoverer, but her beauty had not yet been refined by the cosmeticians as they were when she was transported to Hollywood. Her performance consists mostly of looking sad and morose while mourning the loss of her marriage with only brief glimpses of a smile when she finds her true love (ARIBERT MOG), the handsome young stud who retrieves her clothes after a nude swim.

The swimming scene is very brief, discreetly photographed, and not worth all the heat it apparently generated. The love-making scene, later on, is also artfully photographed with the sort of lyrical photography evident throughout most of the film--artfully so. More is left to the imagination with the use of symbolism--and this is the sort of thing that has others proclaiming the film is some kind of lyrical masterpiece.

Not so. It's disappointing, primitively crude in its sound portions (including the laborious symphonic music in the background) and certainly Miss Lamarr is fortunate that Louis B. Mayer saw the film and on the basis of it, gave her a career in Hollywood. He must have seen something in her work that I didn't.

It's apparent that this was conceived as a silent film with the camera doing all the work. The jarring "workers" scene at the conclusion goes on for too long and is a jarring intrusion where none is needed. It fails to end the film on the proper note.


This movie really shows its age. The print I saw was terrible due to age, but it is possible that there are better prints out there. However, this was not the major problem with the movie. The problem was that although the film was made in 1933, it was essentially a silent film with only the barest of dialog scattered (only a few sentences) in the film in the most amateur fashion. Sometimes the characters' backs were turned or they were talking with their hands over their faces--all in a pathetic attempt to obscure their lips and "cleaverly" (?) hide the fact that the film was dubbed. Well, its true that this Czech film would need to be dubbed into many languages but to do it this way was really stupid and obvious. It just looked cheap.

Overall, the film looked low budget and silly. It's really a shame though, because there was a grain of a good story--a young woman who marries an older man who is either gay and/or has no interest in women. But in the 21st century, few people would really be willing to sit through this archaic mess. EVEN with a few glimpses of the naked (and somewhat chunky) Hedy Lamarr, it isn't worth all the fuss that accompanied the film when it debuted. Even by 1933 standards, this film was a poorly made dud. About the only interesting thing about the film is to see how different Lamarr looked in 1933 compared with the glamorous image Hollywood created when she came to America--she looks like 2 completely different people.

It's such an incomplete looking and technically inferior film, I don't see how it has gotten such rave reviews. For technical problems alone, the movie can't rate a 10 or anything near it.


Final Score: 0 (out of 10)

***Possible scene specific spoilers (but who the hell cares)***

Yes, that's right: zero. And I rarely give 1's. Even for the lamest of movies I look for things like music, cinematography, imagination, it's humor, even a good pace to be as objective about the score as possible. Looking at it within it's own genera or subgenera. But there is absolutely nothing redeeming here. I can't remember another time a movie actually sent me pacing up and down the room when it was over. The only reason I made it to the end was because I couldn't seem to change the channel - I sat there simply aghast, watching to see what insultingly stupid bit it would come up with next. It was like watching a snake digest a rat.

But let's have some fun and pull this baby apart, shall we. First of all, There is nothing technical about "Whipped" that works. The visuals are all sitcom style. The cut scenes all just pictures of the street traffic going by at night over and over. The music and score, not only doesn't contribute anything to the movie - it's obnoxious. Not to mention it doesn't have anything to contribute to anyway. The acting is as cardboard as it comes, all around and that goes for Amanda Peet (clearly the "star" that got this train wreck green-lighted) too. These guys, supposedly good friends, have no more chemistry or sense of purpose then if director Peter M. Cohen had rounded them up at a bus station minutes before shooting.

On the creative side, there isn't an original bone in it's body. It has no imagination. It shows us nothing we haven't seen a thousand times before. The whole premise, or "twist", of this movie is based on male-bashing and the "idea" that an empowered women can play men "just as they get played". Anybody, that thinks this is somehow a twist or is in any way original has obviously never turned on a TV before. Twisted, shallow women are common. Male-bashing is the norm. It's not stealing from anything specifically, it's worse: it's stealing from clichés. I can't imagine a women making a movie that depicted other women based so much on stereotypes and with this sense of contempt. Makes me want to go rent "In the Company of Men" - or better yet, "There's Something About Mary". This movie wants to be a "edgier" version of "There's Something About Mary" so bad you can see the sweat.

The movie has no insights into women, men, dating, sex, or really anything. Cohen is simply content to regurgitate myths he has been indoctrinated with from other sexist movies. On the other end, the movie doesn't work as a satire either, because even though it is ripe with exaggerations one could view as "satirical" it doesn't have that grounding in reality that satires need. It doesn't even know what it's satirizing. Then there's the dialogue, which is little more then the characters screaming obscenities at each other. Example: Character 1: "F**k you" Character 2: "Oh yeah, well f**k you" (repeat)

And the bottom line, the thing that could excuse all the other discretions: There are a lot of movies without plots, without good acting, with morally repulsive characters and obscenity laced dialogue that have been funny and thus, been good. "Whipped" ain't funny. Not for a second. It has no comic skills or timing. The situations are all completely phony, not based in any shred of truth, especially enough to wring laughs out of us. The characters all broadly drawn so they will SEEM relatable to the lowest of the lowest common denominator. Just look at "the marquee scene", "cult classic" hair gel scene. One of our bumbling anti-heroes opens the medicine cabinet and sees Mena (Peet)'s vibrator. For some reason light shines down on it as if he's found the holy grail. Why Cohen thinks men react this way to vibrators I do not know. While he rubs it on himself, he drops it in the toilet and then attempts to fish it out with his bare hands when, oh my, Mena walks in on him. Oh, my sides.

But strangely enough, people actually like this movie. Of course, people also like "Friends" and reality dating shows so I shouldn't be surprised. All of this has a common thread however. "Whipped" is big evidence to me that there is just a huge pocket of people in America that will laugh at any joke just because it is about sex. They will like any show or movie (or think they like it) just because it is about dating or relationships. It's lack of any quality has no baring on these people. Just as people are indoctrinated to want whiter teeth and thinner bodies to sell toothbrushes and weight loss programs, they are also indoctrinated to blindly lap up anything dating/relationship related to sell them cheap, empty, effortless TV, movies and any number of products.

The only consilation will be that when I die, because I saw this movie, I've got a credit to get 80 minutes of my life back.


It just seems bizarre that someone read this script, and thought, "This is funny! I mean, it's so hilarious it just has to be made!" Who was this person? Is he or she the person really responsible for this? Are they the one's who owe me for my time, more so than the director/writer?

This film stinks in most every way possible. There's no one shred of good dialogue, and not one likable character. And the story...

I prefer the 2nd worst movie ever, Hulk Hogan's "No Hold's Barred" to this by quite a considerable degree. It seems almost Shakespearen in comparison.

The ending is padded out with several minutes of outtakes, and it's still under 80 minutes. The outtakes include cast members laughing at the 'hilarious' mistakes they've made, and things that went wrong on the set of this 'comedy.' Glad to see someone laughing in someway, with some connection to this 'film.'

Nothing in this film is funny. Nothing. It just goes on, and on. It's truly that lame. I love films that are so bad they're good. This is so bad it's...something, but I don't know what, and hopefully will never find out.

Amanda Peet doesn't suck outright, and is in fact the only half good thing about this wannabe film. But, that really means little.

Avoid at all costs.


I'll be blunt and to the point. This film is not good at all. The film buff part of me hated the acting, script, story, direction and almost all of the editing. Amanda Peet has proven that she can act, as she was a high point of 'The Whole Nine Yards'. So she should have avoided this movie with a ten foot pole. However, the infantile part of me found this film to be very funny. If you can forget about how underpar the production quality is, and if you find smut jokes funny, then you should be all right. And for those of you who can't get off your pedestal, thats your choice. My inner child hasen't died, and I laughed a fair bit. Even then, only a 3 out of ten, because as a movie, it really does stink.


A poorly written script with no likeable characters. As for it being a comedy, I forgot to laugh. It's about 2 conceited friends who scam to get women in too bed with them (no sex scenes) and another friend(who is semi-discustingly weird)who sometimes also scams but mainly is considered as being the guy who masterbates. The 3 friends separately meet and fall for the same woman (Amanda Peet). Somehow this is done without really any romance. The 3 guys stop being friends as they separately dated her. She scammed them out of their friendship because they scammed women. -- A bad movie