Wow! I remember so many awful films that loosely revolved around high school from the early 1980s. They usually had someincredibly strained plot and lots of 27 year old actors pretending to be students. As I watched this film I felt a little of the nostalgia of growing up in the 1980s. However, then I find out that this film was made in 1989? Say what! Well, the nostalgia factor ends right there, this is just bad. The plot has the city preparing to close a high school and threatening to bus all of the students to inner city high schools. Which is odd, in that the students at this school are both wealthy and abundant. In fact, the main character lives in a mansion. Makes you wonder how they cannot find money to keep this school alive, have they never heard of property taxes. Oh, but here is the kicker. The school board says that they will keep the school alive, if the students can raise $200,000. So the seniors go about doing this. Hmmm, you raise $200,000 but instead of saving that for college, you put it towards saving the high school that you are a Senior in? And why exactly would they close an overpopulated school before the year is out? And...ahh forget it, this film was stupid and made in 1989!?


This film has been receiving a lot of play lately during the day on either HBO or Cinemax. The reason is that they are assuming people would be interested in comparing it to the Leonardo DiCaprio/Tom Hanks caper of the same name. The only reason to see it is for the attractive Matt Lattanzi. Yum! Although I must say Matt was more than a little long in the tooth to be playing a high schooler. If he were a woman, they'd have had him playing the MOTHER of a high schooler! (Is is just me, or is his daughter starting to look like Shelley Duvall?) Oh yeah, the plot--who cares? Typical teen highjinx played by adults.


[***POSSIBLE SPOILERS***] This movie's reputation precedes it, so it was with anticipation that I sat down to watch it in letterbox on TCM. What a major disappointment.

The cast is superb and the production values are first-rate, but the characters are without depth, the plot is thin, and the whole thing goes on too long. For a movie that deals with alcoholism, family divisions, unfaithfulness, gambling, and sexual repression, the movie is curiously flat, prosaic, lifeless, and cliche-ridden. One example is the portrayal of Frank Hirsch's unfaithfuness: his rather heavy-handed request to his wife to "go upstairs and relax a bit" followed by her predictable pleading of a headache, leads - even more predictably - to his evening liaison with his secretary ("hey Nancy, I've got the blues tonight. Let's go for a drive"), all according to well-worn formula. We don't feel these are real people, but cardboard cutouts acting in a marionette play. Also, the source of the obvious friction between Frank and Dave Hirsch is never really explored or explained. Dave's infatuation with the on-again/off-again Gwen is inexplicable in light of her fatuous inability to defecate or get off the pot. His subsequent marriage of desperation to the Shirley Maclaine/Ginny character is, from the moment of its being presented to this viewer, anyway, obviously doomed to fail, and it was clear - by the conventions of this type of soap opera - that it could only be resolved by someone being killed. The moment the jealous lover started running around with the gun I started a bet with myself as to who - Dave or Ginny - would get killed. The whole thing was phony with a capital 'P'.

Having said that, Maclaine's performance and that of Dean Martin are the standouts here. But on the whole I find the movie's interest to be purely that of a period piece of Hollywood history.


But I doubt many were running to see this movie. Or "Some Came Running Out Of The Cinema". Okay, that's a bit harsh.

The film starts in an unintentionally comical way: Frankie-boy comes back to his hometown after many years (this already smells of clichés) and the whole town is shaken by his arrival: he is talked about, everyone wants to talk to him, and every woman he meets flirts with him like there's no tomorrow - even his niece hints that she would gladly have dropped her date to chat with Frankie-boy a little longer! Even his pretty niece wants a piece of him! Sounds like one of those laughable "Mike Hammer" episodes where EVERY single female wants Stacey Keach. And, like Stacey Keach, Frankie-boy is anything but a good-looking woman's wet dream. In real life, someone like Sinatra (without the fame) wouldn't get within 100 m of someone as beautiful as MacLaine. But in this Hollywood movie it's the other way around: MacLaine is absolutely nuts about Frankie-boy, but HE couldn't care less! Sinatra plays his "cool" shtick much too often in his movies, and it is rarely credible. Dean Martin is kind of miscast; he isn't miscast as a card-player, but rather because of the accent which simply doesn't suit him. MacLaine is charming as ever, but she plays a caricature - and this reliance on caricatures is one of the basic problems with the film. The main characters are all some sort of stereotypes out of bad or seen-it-all-before movies and cheap novels; Frankie is the "cool cat" who comes back to town to get all the women, and he couldn't care less about his writing (which, predictably, eventually garners recognition); Martin is a sleazy but friendly card-player; MacLaine is the dumb, but very likable bimbo; Frankie's blond love-interest is a snotty literary expert; Frankie's brother is the successful guy who married into his wife's business and has a lousy marriage; and so on. Clichés.

The story contains a couple of coincidences which are a little too far-fetched for my taste: Frankie just happens to bump into his niece in a locale; his niece just happens to be meters away from her daddy when the latter kisses his secretary for the FIRST time; and then there is the awful, stupid ending.

In it, a drunk guy bent on killing Frankie-boy somehow manages to find him in a carnival of all places! The place is utterly crowded, with the typical noise and chaos - plus it's happening in the evening - and yet the guy somehow finds Frankie (in spite of being drunk as a doorknob) and shoots at him. But guess who he kills? MacLaine. She jumps in front of the bullet to save Frankie: a cliché which comic-book writers might cringe at. This utterly pathetic, over-dramatic, and annoying ending certainly cannot please any, even semi-intelligent, viewer. And this happens on the same day that MacLaine and Sinatra got married! The writer of this nonsense seems to have read crappy dime novels his whole life - how else is the writing of this movie to be explained? There is even a card game in which a brawl ensues with Frankie & Martin vs. some cliché caricatures out of the writer's "vivid" imagination. (It was like a damn Western suddenly.) Another dumb thing is the way Sinatra was crazy about the boring snotty-nosed bimbo and pretty much ignored MacLaine. As the movie progresses we find out that Sinatra finds MacLaine to be too dumb for him, just as the blond bimbo finds Sinatra to be too low-class for her. There is a certain snobbism and disdain to be detected in the script regarding MacLaine. MacLaine is treated as worthless by everyone, while the blond bimbo is treated as a princess and an intellectual; the ironic truth is that the latter's character comes off as rather dumb and not at all as intellectual; her behaviour, comments, and opinions are mostly clichéd, silly, confused, pretentious, and primitive. At least MacLaine's character KNOWS that she (MacLaine) is dumb. There is another irony that I didn't fail to notice: Sinatra had trouble finding an ending for his latest story - much like the writer of this movie, and that's why he came up with the corny, crappy finale.

The film basically has a solid cast, and the photography is nice, but the script, though sometimes okay, relies to heavily on silly nonsense instead of on reality-based characters and events.

If you're interested in reading my "biographies" of Shirley MacLaine and other Hollywood intellectuals, contact me by e-mail.


Poor performances by Sinatra, Martin and Hyer. Grossly underdeveloped supporting characters. Annoying talky with no real plot. Ending leaves you flatter than a pancake, with more loose ends than you could tie up in four sequels (that is, if you even cared about these wooden characters). MacLaine is the only real asset. That penultimate sequence in which the "Chicago hood" searches for the Sinatra character is laughable. The music in that sequence also is poor. And in the final scene when Martin's character removes his hat for the woman he called a "pig," almost made me go outside and find a stone to throw through my television screen.


Vincente Minelli movies are usually worth your time; Meet Me in St Louis, The Bad and the Beautiful. I awaited this movie with great interest. But what a disappointment.

Some Came Running is scene after scene of go-nowhere fatalism. Sinatra is a sad sack, returned from the war to find disappointing family relationships, a disappointing floozy hanging on him, living in disappointing digs as a gal persuades him to finish his disappointing writing project. The movie has a big dramatic finish in which a disappointing villain catches up with Sinatra and MacClane and something disappointing happens. The sequence is intended to be tension-filled but Minelli is no Hitchcock; he gets so distracted by pretty colors, he doesn't notice the scene is a wheezing cliché and the characters are so thinly-drawn and poorly developed we don't particularly care that they get shot. (especially MacClane) But that's the only real cinematography in the project. Otherwise we look at constipated characters standing around bars & living rooms getting on each others nerves for two hours. Hell IS other people, apparently.

There is nothing going on in this movie. The dilemma of soldiers returning to displacement and indifference after WW2 is handled more deftly in 'The Best Years of Our Lives.' And either of two Inge products, 'Splendor in the Grass' and 'Picnic' covers the desperation of being trapped in a dead-end town, with much more poignance.


Frank Sinatra plays a no-goodnik ex-soldier and frustrated writer, hard-living and hard-drinking, who returns to his Midwestern hometown and reunites with his estranged brother (Arthur Kennedy), now the town big-shot with a disinterested wife and headstrong daughter. Frank gets involved with gambler Dean Martin, uneducated flooze Shirley MacLaine, and has some run-ins with the law, but what he really wants to do is write and settle down with a good woman. Over-simplified drama verging on soap opera, with a role for MacLaine that is by turns overly 'colorful' and embarrassingly sentimental (her drunken belting on "After You've Gone" is however the film's highlight, and is expertly handled). Director Vincente Minnelli oversees it in straight-forward fashion, but he's in surprisingly glum spirits and most of the big scenes are flat or dense. The picture looks incredibly handsome in widescreen, with a nice eye for detail and composition, but the story and these characters are stuck in the dregs. ** from ****


OK, I have watched the original French version. But I can't imagine this being better with subtitles.

All I have to say that this is the most boring movie I have seen in a long time. There are almost no redeeming qualities to this film. That's why I can't understand all the positive reviews. It might be realistic in a sense but some real stories are best left untold.

I usually like slow paced movies as long as it serves the purpose of the movie. Tarkovsky's Solaris is extremely slow paced but it allows introspection and sets the mood of the film for example. But in this case, the movie is just filed with mindless dialog that manage to tell us little about the characters. None of which I could identify with or care for. In a lot of the scenes I found myself thinking: "When are they going to shut up"? The acting was pretty bad. Not in an overacting obvious kind of way. But It seems none of the actors cared about their characters and they all looked like they wanted to be elsewhere in most of the scenes. This might be due to the uninspired dialog they were given. Also the whole flow of the movie felt quite mechanical. Going from one scene to the next. It seems this movie was just written (badly) but never directed.

This is one of the few films that I can say generated no emotional response from any of the scenes. No suspense, no fear, no anticipation, no sorrow, no introspection, no intellectual stimulation, no interest what so ever.

A perfect example of what I call an anti-movie.


Please, spare me of these movies that teach us that crime is fun and justified. Couple that with a vacuous script with an intense desire to be a Farrelly or a Coen brother, plus the lives of yet ANOTHER group of supposedly high school age people acting out their Dawson Creek-brand teen angst complete with a GenXYZ soundtrack that woefully tries to make the movie "feel" cool and, we have intensely and painfully inept satire.

This isn't even watered-down 'Ferris Bueller'...I'd rather watch a traffic light change.

Only one scene stands out as anywhere near worth the price of admission: when the Betty Masked girls meet a Richard Nixon Masked friend. It's a surreal moment. Priceless even.

But for the rest of it, I'd rather have a toothache. At least I can apply some Benzocaine(tm) to stop the pain.


I tried to watch this movie three separate times. The night I rented it. Got through about 20 minutes hoping it would be better if I had a night's rest. Watched 15 more the next day, almost vomited at how stupid it was... It wasn't even funny stupid which is sometimes a fun movie to watch but this movie was just crap with a capital S (if you know what I mean in the censored world we live in). And finally on the third day I watched over an hour of the dumb thing and I didn't enjoy one single moment! Not even one. How did this script get greenlighted. Oh boy!

G

1/10 - the one is for cheerleaders... they deserve at least something for all their hardwork.


I can't believe it that was the worst movie i have ever seen in my life. i laughed a couple of times. ( probably because of how stupid it was ) If someone paid me to see that movie again i wouldn't. the plot was so horrible , it made no sense , and the acting was so bad that i couldn't even tell if they were trying. that movie was terrible rating: F


I wanted to see this movie ever since it was first advertised on TV. I went to Tinsel Town to see it Last Night at 7:40. I regret the day that wasted my ticket on this trash when I could of saw something better. The beginning was all a bunch sex trash and cliches. They exaggerated the way love works in reality. All of the girls were stereo types. The boyfriend was too stupid for his own age. The passing gases that the pregnant girl kept having barely got any laughs. The bank robbery was completely boring with gags that have been used in other movies. Their getaway car was an old beat up Chevy van that they claimed that had no breaks. Hey why didn't they get nice girlish vehicle for the robbery instead? It might have boosted the audience opinion about the movie. This movie was very low low low low low budgeted since nothing in there was damaged or destroyed. This movie had a lot of stuff in it that would drive Christian people nuts. Hey I even expected a car chase scene because all bank robbing movies have car chases but I but there was never any. So I rate this movie b which stands for low budgeted and 1 out of ten stars.


Sugar &Spice is one of the worst movies of 2001. The film tries to cross Heathers and Bring It On and fails . When I saw last January I was so disgusted by the film that I walked and talked on my cell phone to my girlfriend for the last half hour of the movie. I've heard that the DVD has a director's cut maybe I'll check it out, but this PG-13 trash movie is s*** and the worst kind of s***. Maybe if the film had some T&A that would've have made it okay. But the gags are lame and the acting is horrible. Worse than a Troma film.


The storyplot was okay by itself, but the film felt very bubbly and fake. It also had the worst ending. They were probably going for a surprise ending, but all it did was leave me the question of what the whole point of the story was. All other teen movies are better than this one.


This movie looked like it was going to be really funny. I was very excited to see it but was very disappointed. It was very unrealistic. The plot was also pretty weak. I was expecting it to be really funny but the jokes weren't even that good. I was also really disappointed with the ending. I would not recommend this movie to anyone.


I always get frustrated by films that were obviously written by one gender. Especially when they obviously don't do enough research to find out when something not only doesn't ring true, but rings blatently false.

The scene I am remembering is the one in the bathroom where Jack tells his football teammates that he got Diane pregnant. In no way, shape, or form would a guy ever cheer another guy getting a girl pregnant in high school. They might cheer about the guy having sex with the hot cheerleader, but I can also guarantee that the first the football team heard about it would not be at a urinal.

It was obvious that this film didn't take itself so seriously, and it wasn't hideously bad, but come on!


Ah yes, the VS series, MVC2 being the pinnacle. It's been said before, this is what you get when half of the crew fell asleep on the job, unfortunately the gameplay half did. Don't get me wrong, this is fun, but you get tired of mashing buttons. As for the plot summary, AHAHAHAHAHAAAAA... There is no plot. Beat that guy at the end and win! Eh, who plays this by their self anyway?


I'm not going to criticize the movie. There isn't that much to talk about. It has good animal actions scenes which were probably pretty astonishing at the time. Clyde Beatty isn't exactly a matinée idol. He's a little slight and not particularly good looking. But that's OK. He's the man in that lion cage. We know that when he can't take the time away from his lions to tend to his girlfriend, he will end up on an island with her and have to save the day. Someone said earlier that it is a history lesson. The scenes at the circus are of another day, especially the kids who hang around. I didn't realize that even back in the thirties, they sailed on three masted schooners. It looked like something out of 1860. I guess that's the stock footage they had. No wonder the thing got wrecked. They're always talking about fixing her up. There's even a dirigible. It tells us a little about male female relationships at the time, a kind of giggly silliness. But if you don't take it too seriously, you can have fun watching it.


The only reason I watched this film was because I had recently read Robert Hough's less than perfect, but interesting, fictionalised account of the life of Big Cat trainer Mabel Stark. Beaty appears as a character in the book, in a less than flattering light.

I hadn't realised until checking the movie out later on the IMDb that it was originally a serial. Whoever edited the original running time of 233 minutes down to the 68 minuted version available on DVD has done a hell of a good job. The shortened version plays just as well as any B movie of the period despite the many 'duh-what?' moments. For instance are we really expected to believe our hero dug that twenty foot deep tiger trap in a morning without even getting his jodhpurs dirty? Looking over the chapter titles I see that number five is titled "Gorilla Warfare" and number eleven is called "The Gorilla". There were no gorillas at all in the movie. I guess that's where some of the cuts were made.

Historicaly interesting.


Also known in a different form as "House of Exorcism," this messy

little film takes itself so seriously as to kill any entertainment value

whatsoever.

The spare plot involves European tourist Elke Sommer who has a

chance run in with Telly Savalas, who looks just like the devil she

saw on a fresco in the square. Sommer is given a ride to a

mysterious house in the country, where Savalas happens to be

butler. There, she is mistaken for a long dead woman, and the real

soap opera theatrics begin. The house's blind matriarch's

husband had an affair with the dead woman, who was the

matriarch's son's fiancee. The couple who gave Sommer the ride?

Well, the woman is giving the chauffeur, uh, "back seat driving

lessons," and the husband knows and does not care. Eventually,

most of the cast is killed, Sommer is drugged and raped,

escapes, and the viewer is taken to a climax on board an empty

airplane...which must have resembled the empty theaters this

thing played in.

The alternate version of this, "House of Exorcism," has scenes

added involving a priest.

The VHS copy of this, from Elite Entertainment, is crystal clear and

letterboxed. There are "extras" after the end credits; deleted sex

and gore scenes.

Mario Bava's direction is fast and furious, but his screenplay is

awful. There are half baked ideas, abandoned plotlines, and

stunning conveniences that do nothing more than propel this thing

in some sort of forward direction. You have life like dummies for

practice funerals, the blind matriarch does not act all that blind,

and Savalas is given the same lollipops he had in "Kojak," (who

haunts ya, baby?).

The project seems like they had two name stars, then wrote the

script quickly, something that happens in Hollywood on a daily

occurrence now. Savalas looks completely lost, delivering his

lines haltingly, and wishing his character had not died in "The Dirty

Dozen." Sommer runs around and screams and gasps a lot, but

her character is a blank, I use the term "character" loosely. The

only thing we know about her is her name.

This is a real weird film, and your reaction to it might depend on

how heavily you are into Eurohorror, and Kojak. I for one cannot

recomment "Lisa and the Devil."

This is unrated, and including all the extras at the end of the VHS

copy, contains strong physical violence, sexual violence, strong

gore, strong female nudity, male nudity, sexual content, and adult

situations


This movie was bizarre, completely inexplicable, and hysterical to watch with friends while drinking in a big empty house. I really love the opening stuff with Lisa wandering about lost in a gorgeous city. I want to be a beautiful stranger lost in some exotic European locale, though maybe not in a low budget horror flick. Definitely get the ending where there are the strangely non-sexual sex scenes that were cut out (in my DVD copy anyway). Don't attempt to understand it, just go along and watch out for the weird bits...which is everything. Don't watch this if you actually want plot or characterization or anything at all to make sense. Pretty beautiful, though you may just give up on this and decide to watch an actual horror movie, like say, Dead Alive.


This is the page for "House of Exorcism", but most people have confused this film with the Mario Bava masterpiece, "Lisa & the Devil", which explains the ridiculously high rating for this, "House of exorcism." When "Lisa & the Devil" was shown at film festivals in the early 70's, it was a critical success. Audiences responded well to that gorgeous, Gothic horror film. Unfortunately it was a bit ahead of it's time, and was considered too unusual, and not commercial enough for mass consumption. No distributor would buy it. So producer Alfredo Leone decided to edit 'Lisa', seemingly with a chainsaw, by removing just about half of the original film, and adding new scenes, which he filmed two years after the original product! It is important to note that Bava had little to do with these new, hideous additions, so technically "House of Exorcism" is not a Bava film. The original product is a slow, dreamy, classy production. A few minutes into the film, the viewer is jarred out of this dream world, as suddenly we see Lisa, (two years older, and with a very different haircut), begin to writhe on the ground, making guttural sounds and croaking epitaphs like "suck my co@k", etc. Subtle, huh? And the film continues like this, jumping back and forth between a beautiful, visual film, and a grade Z "Exorcist" rip-off. Leone was trying to incorporate these shock scenes, while keeping some semblance of a story intact. He failed miserably. When the choice was made to basically destroy "Lisa and the devil", Bava himself refused, saying that his film was too beautiful to cut. He was right, and it must have been quite sad for this artist to see all his work destroyed and flushed down the toilet. It was many years before the original "Lisa and the Devil" was seen again, re-surfacing on late night television. I had seen "lisa" long before i saw this new version, and it was downright disturbing to witness one of my favorite films "vandalised" in this way. Worth seeing only for curiosity sake. Otherwise avoid this insidious disaster like the plague.


This movie is really bad. The acting is plain awful except Michael Ironside. I don't get the story. Richard Grieco is the only survivor after a fight between two Mc-gangs. He comes to a town and suddenly he is choosened to fight against the bad people who wants indian-land. At the cover it said he was a indian himself that returned too his home-town, I didn't hear that in the movie, if so it wasn't clear.

Richard Grieco was one hell of a bad actor. Stiff and ugly. He said his lines like it too. And we wouldn't talk about Sean Young, she hasn' been any of my favourite actors but in this movie she plays a indian women who falls in love with Bolt (Grieco). She is awful.

When I rented it I choosed between this and Subterfuge with Amanda Pays. I choosed this one because of Michael Ironside was in the cast. Maybe I should have taken Subterfuge.

Don't see this unless you think Richard Grieco looks tough on a motorbike with sunglasses.

I will soon uptade the cast-list because I have it at home. I wrote it down after I seen the movie.


I thought the movie was a poor documentary. Nothing of substance was discussed. It seemed to cheapen the ideas and did not provide anything new. The film lacked wonder or romance or anything that would really drive one to science. Most scientists appeared "stereotyped" and sometimes weird. A woman said that her awards didn't matter a whole lot, only children that were helped. She said that after a 10 minute scene where she explained all her awards. Playing "humble scientist", are we? "I have equations dancing in my head," another said. I don't see how that explains anything to us. It hasn't covered significant effects of science on our culture. Politics of science were barely touched.

Not a bad flick for a 10-14 year-olds. Other than that, I felt it was boring and unrevealing.

4/10


When I look for new cars, I expect not to be shown boats. When I drink fountain Coke, I should expect that the drink contains Coke. When I watch a movie that embellishes itself with the name of en excellent scientist, I expect that it is in some way relevant to that person or their work. This could have been people discussing my grannys' diary. The material covered is relevant only in that they vaguely tirade science. I fell asleep the first time I tried to watch it, & the second time I stopped watching it.

I love science & documentaries. I would rather watch them over the latest blockbuster. However this falls far short of providing anything worth your time  Avoid at all costs.


you have a strong stomach. Holden was actually 55 years old at filming but looked near 70 and he only lived another 8 years. At one point Holden said, "I am over twice your age." Okay, try triple grandpa! The "old enough to be your father" theme they were shooting for didn't work. Granted senior citizens sometimes wind up with legal teens. More power to them, but that doesn't mean I want to watch it. It's not a matter of judgment but the digestive track. I like my food where it belongs. Lenz is fun to watch and the 70s cars, clothes, furniture, etc. make it worth it if it comes on cable late at night and you want to watch something to wind down for bed. It would have been nice to see the blonde friend of Lenz, the one who hocked her guitar, get more scenes. Pleasingly spacey... Who was this chick? I'm going to try and find out.


Trifling romantic drama directed by Clint Eastwood about the loving relationship which grows between a comely hippie (Kay Lenz) and a Los Angeles real estate agent in his golden years (William Holden, surprisingly affable within this highly-concocted arrangement). The script is slight but not without some thoughtful passages; still, the scenario is such a middle-aged cliché by now that most of the picture comes off as puerile. It may have worked much better with different leads: Holden and Lenz don't match up well (her stature is so slight he seems to tower over her), making their intimate scenes less stirring than simply uncomfortable. Dated, blurry-romantic, and mostly unmemorable. ** from ****


This is a terrible film, and not one scene has an ounce of truthful emotion. The characters are uninflected, obviously drawn, predictable and the story line is obvious and typical Hollywood wish fulfillment.

William Holden (so sad to see him in this role) was 55 when this film was made, but he's playing someone in his early 40s and looks like he's in his 60s. Kay Lenz was 20 and was scripted to find him irresistibly attractive. I think the dog they found by the side of the road was sexier and had more life than their erotic connection.

Holden's character--the same age as Clint Eastwood when he directed this film, (not) coincidentally--is placed with obvious trappings of 60s pre-hippie cool: the bachelor pad, the swinging hi-fi, the lunches at Yamashiro. But the film is ridiculously uncool, a clanging claptrap of old fogies desperately wishing that the free spirits they saw on Sunset and in Laurel Canyon would find them and their big honkin' cars sexy.

Ugh. Youth culture was never that desperate. And I shudder to think that Bill Holden was so desperate for youth that he took this embarrassing part.


The only thing that surprises me more than the number of people who liked this movie is that it was directed by Clint Eastwood, whose work I admire immensely. The leads had absolutely no chemistry. Not for a second could I believe that there was anything deeper than lust between them. The story just didn't ring true. Add to that stilted conversation, tons of stereotypes, and an incredibly slow plot that basically leads nowhere, and you've got yourself a real stinker. Kay Lenz's nude scenes might be worthwhile for those seeking some salacious fare, but otherwise this is a colossal waste of time. My thoughts as I watched the movie was that itwould have been better titled "Cheesy."


This ludicrous film offers the standard 1970's "hippie mentality" in a nut shell and bores us in the process. Its an attempt to rationalize absurd marriages of young, innocent women with old age sex fiends and wash ups. A naive young hippy played by the waif-like ( Kay Lenz ) hitch hikes and sleeps with all the wrong guys, and then one day she meets the ridiculous (Holden), already in old age, hard liquor drinking and washed up as an actor, and she decides that she is in "love" with him. If you think that is superficial, the whole film encapsulates such scenes. She keeps saying how much she "loves" him and she only met him, it wears thin and really quick. I couldn't help but laugh throughout the film. Its obvious she's just using him as a meal ticket but the director is immature enough to think we are going to buy that there is actually any love taking place. A disgusting scene is where the two are naked and having sex, I had to fast forward it because it almost inspired me to vomit. A corny offering of music from the 70's is also spread through the film. Avoid this if you can. Grade D.


One star for the "plot". One star for the acting. One star for the dubbing into squeaky-voiced American. Five stars for Monica Broeke and Inge Maria Granzow, with their propensity for taking all their clothes off. And ten out of ten for the divine Emmanuelle Béart, two years before she made 'Manon des sources'. Béart also undresses a couple of times, but even fully-clothed her presence is enough to make this film eminently watchable. Watch out for the scene where she tells her friend about the three "first times" for a girl. It's corny, but still far more erotic than the rather laughably choreographed "love scenes" featuring Broeke, Granzow and Patrick Bauchau. Incidentally, the cinematography is not great; the stills for the closing credits are a better indication of what David Hamilton is capable of.


This film makes you really appreciate the invention of the fast forward button on your remote control. It's exquisite boredom in beautiful pictures. For once Hamilton goes relatively easy on soft focus shots. However, what I found hard to take about the film was that although Anja Schüte was about 19 when it was shot the girls are portrayed as much younger than they actually are. This whole Lolita thing especially as there is an older man involved leaves me rather uneasy. The heroine is actually shaved in the pubic area in order to make her look even younger than she is. Come on, sex is a nice past time- between consenting adults. Another thing I found odd was that neither Beart nor Schüte have a nude scene in the film, well, not a proper one at least.


This is complete and absolute garbage, a fine example of what a BAD movie is like, this can't be appealing to anyone, not even b-movie fans. Do not, I repeat, DO NOT waste precious time of your life on this piece of trash. Bad acting, bad directing, horrible (but I mean really horrible) script, and complete lack of an idea as to what entertainment (of any form) is. I bought the DVD for 3 dollars, I swear I could almost pay someone to take it. Burning it would not be enough for what this movie did to me. I like b-movies, the killer toys, the weird lagoon monsters, but this is nowhere near. You know those movies that are so bad they are funny? Not even. Just plain old pathetic.


In theory, films should be a form of entertainment. While this excludes documentaries and other experimental forms of film-making; most movies, specially genre films, must not only tell it's story or message, they must entertain their target audience in some way. All this just to say that in my opinion a bad movie is not a movie with low production values or low-budget, a bad movie is one that is boring.

"Hellborn" or "Asylum of the Damned" as is known in the U.S., is a bad movie simply because it is just not involving, and irremediably boring and tiresome. While it has a very good premise, it is just poorly developed and the mediocre acting doesn't make things better. On another hands the film probably could had been a fine or even classic B-movie, but here it is just a bad attempt at film-making.

Director Philip J. Jones tells the tale of James Bishop (Matt Stasi), a young psychiatry resident, who just got his dream job at St. Andrew Mental Hospital; but the old asylum seems to hide a secret. After the mysterious death of some patients and the constant rumors of satanic practices, James decides to find out what is going on; only to find the incredulity of his boss, Dr. McCort (Bruce Payne), who believes that Bishop is going as insane as his patients.

While the premise is quite interesting, the execution of the film leaves a lot to be desired. In an attempt of making a supernatural psychological thriller, Jones goes for the easy way out and makes a movie filled with every cliché of the genre. Of course, there are lots of great movies that are also filled with clichés; but in "Hellborn" every single one is wasted and turned into a cheap jump scare to keep things moving, resulting in a boring and predictable storyline.

The acting is quite mediocre for the most part, with one big exception: Bruce Payne gives a top-notch performance that makes the movie look unworthy of such good acting. Matt Stasi is very weak as the lead character and the rest of the cast make forgettable performances.

Despite all this flaws, one thing has to be written about "Hellborn"; it has a visual look very good for the budget and very similar to modern day big-budget Hollywod "horror" productions. Also, the make-up and prosthetics are done very nicely and the designs for the main antagonist are quite good. Sadly, the rest of the Special Effects are awful and outdated, making a huge contrast with the make-up & prosthetics.

"Hellborn" is a movie with a few good things outnumbered by its serious flaws with terrible results. Hardcore horror or b-movie fans may be interested by its premise but it is a boring and tiresome experience. 3/10


I've seen some very terrible horror movies in my time, and while this isn't the worst of the bunch, it's certainly in the lower half. The script starts off OK. A young doctor goes to a hospital as an intern, hoping it will vault him to a better job for him and his future wife. Cute huh? The movie then heads straight into the toilet when you realize that something is killing patients. Turns out that there's a demon on the basement that's harvesting people's souls. It's the job of the 1 doctor, 1 nurse, and 1 security guard in the entire hospital staff to drag this mental patient downstairs, do a ritual that pretty much just involves cutting the tongue out, and then allowing the haunted house prop of a demon to come out and steal his soul through the magic of cheesy special effects. At this point the movie gets so ridiculously stupid, I was begging for it to be over. There was still an hour to go. It looked like a half an hour "Tales From the Crypt" episode that somehow got stretched into an hour and a half crap-fest. From Tiny Lister doing his best John Coffey (The Green Mile) impersonation to Tracy Scoggins playing the stereotypical frigid Nurse Ratchet, this movie fails in every possible level. I gave this 2 stars for only TWO reason. 1) His fiancé is pretty hot, she eased the pain a little towards the end and 2) The movie actually looks OK, a lot better than the current trend of horror movies being made with wal-mart quality home cameras.

In the end, avoid this turd even if you have the Blockbuster movie pass (which I do, and I still felt cheated). As a bonus drinking game, you and your buddies take a shot every time Matt Stasi (Dr. James Bishop) shakes his head while talking. You'll be drunk 15 minutes into the movie.


The cast although nothing special, all do an OK job, the story seems like a good idea, the script is bearable and the end has quite a good twist; so what's wrong with it?

For a start the special effects are really bad (if this was made in the 60's) it might look OK but in 2003 there is just no excuse for visuals as poor as this. It makes me laugh that the DVD cover claims very proudly 'from the special effects creator of Jeepers Creepers'.

Secondly the direction is weak, this film just does not capture the essence of the story, A doctor feeding the hospital inmates souls to the Devil (or demon type creature) should be tense or frightening; it simply isn't.

All in all this is a pretty poor film, and although bearable and at times mildly entertaining, it is still probably best left alone.

A rather sad 4/10


Hellborn starts as a young psychiatric doctor named James Bishop (Matt Stasi) takes up his residency at St. Andrews insane asylum, or 'mental illness facility' as they like to call it there. With nearly 600 patients Bishop meets his boss Dr. McCort (Bruce Payne) & is put to work, he gets ward 'A' where some seriously deranged & dangerous patients are held. If that wasn't bad enough during his first round of visits Bishop finds a dead body & has threatening sounding graffiti messages sprayed over his room. Bishop starts to hear stories from the patients about sinister goings-on at the asylum & soon finds out for himself the stories have more than a hint of truth about them...

Known as Asylum of the Damned in the US this supernatural horror film was directed by Philip J. Jones & I sort of liked it but in the end there were too many unsatisfying elements for me to totally enjoy it. The script by Matt McCombs takes itself pretty seriously & I quite liked the basic idea behind & some of it's ideas but there are a few things which work against it. For a start the film is just too slow, the story is pretty good & doesn't give itself away too early but it takes an absolute age for it to get going & I was rapidly losing interest with each passing minute. I also thought the so-called twist ending was far too predictable & the ending itself far too bland & forgettable. It's a shame because I liked the story, the character's, the setting & some of the ideas but it's simply too slow & frankly dull to keep one entertained over it's 90 minute duration. It's one of those films which I would like to recommend but in all honesty I can't.

Director Jones does a good job, this is actually a well lit & quite atmospheric film. I wouldn't say there's anything scary here. I'm not sure if Hellborn was shot in a real insane asylum but if it wasn't they did a great job on the sets & the film looks pretty good overall. Unfortunately there is a real lack of gore or action, there are two hand-print shaped wounds & a severed tongue & that's it, absolutely nothing else in terms of blood or gore which has to go down as a disappointment. Depending on who you believe & which review you read the special effects are either the worst ever or very good, well as a devoted watcher of low budget horror I was very impressed with the effects especially the demon thing which looks mightily impressive & is a man in a suit type effect rather than a terrible CGI computer graphic although it's an impressive suit. It all depends on your expectations I suppose.

Technically the film is good, it looks nice enough & the lack of CGI computer effects is something I welcome. The acting isn't great though, it certainly could have been better.

Hellborn is a film that disappointed me, there were some good stuff about it but at the same time some terrible stuff which unfortunately outweighs the good. I sort of liked parts of it but as a whole 90 minute viewing experience I'd find it totally impossible to recommend to anyone.


Because others have gone to the trouble of summarizing the plot, I'd like to mention a few points about this film. There may be spoilers here; I don't care enough to filter them out.

- Given the film's low budget, the creature design was quite good. It's actually nice to see a direct-to-video horror film that's not slathered with awful CGI. Unfortunately the digital film quality's quite grainy in places, and it's most noticeable in the well-lit white halls of the asylum.

- Ridiculous lighting design plagues parts of this film, to say nothing of the variations in the passage of time. I understand the director might have been trying to simulate dementia, but in order for this to be effective consistent time flow needed to be established. As-is, it merely seems amateurish.

- Plot twists were numerous but consistently predictable. I neither had a doubt in my mind of the identity of the robed cultists, nor of the fact that some kind of lame evil-trumps-good development would surface at the end.

- This may seem like quibbling, but characters in this film reliably fail to employ any kind of common sense. First of all, regulatory commissions would be all over a mental health center that unilaterally declared all patient and employee deaths cardiac arrest-induced. Why would the head psychiatrist also be capable of performing autopsies? Why wasn't a plot point made of these impressive qualifications, or of his introduction to his odd choice of religion? What's the background? What's supposed to make us care about anyone in this? And just as importantly, who in their right mind would go through the introduction to the place, see everything that was so frighteningly wrong with it, and then conclude that it was still a fine place to pursue a residency? This film didn't even respect its characters enough to give their intelligence the benefit of the doubt.

Bottom line: See The Wicker Man instead.


If I have to give this movie a score on a linear scale, then I have to give it a low score 3/10.

But it was entertaining, and there are several good things to say about the movie.

The psychiatrist candidate James Bishop is assigned to St. Andrews Hospital for his resident, and is exited and eager to "change the world".

From the beginning of the movie you know that the hospital is hiding an evil truth, but James thinks he can make a difference and doesn't recognise this evil.

The story builds fairly well, you know all the time that there is a truth in what the patients are telling about some resident evil, and wonder when and how James will discover this. Also when the break comes, James is in a way hunted by the evil, and you feel some suspense until "the fight" is over.

Add an innocent beautiful girlfriend that arrives at the worst possible time and other standard horror elements, and you get the picture.

The character buildup is actually fairly good, you are introduced to most of the people that gets killed, some of them you "get to know".

The film sets an unpleasant scene, this is also done fairly well. There are mysteries that are unveiled - in an acceptable way.

The main character, James is very believable - the story about an eager student starting to work is good in this setting.

What kills this movie is: * Stupid special effects - a modern version of "Plan 9 from outer space"-type bad (the evil monster looks like a red scarecrow) * Some bad acting (or probably very few takes when filming) - The main characters sometimes acts badly, and somtimes good. * The sound is at times very cheap.

I kept thinking "I could make a movie like this with my home video camera" throughout the film.


I was fooled to rent this movie by its impressive cover. Alas. It is easily one of the worst movies ever made. Judging by the acting of the film characters, it's more a comedy than a horror film. No surprise why no one else has written comments on the imdb. Avoid it.


Don't even waste your time, let alone pay rental for this piece of dreck! How it got made is beyond me. (I don't know why there's a minimum of 10 lines... I've already summarized this trashy movie, but, oh well...) The acting was awful, like they all needed lessons. The plot was weak, the ending... Feh! I think the cinematography was the only thing that didn't totally suck... well, maybe the sound was minimalistically OK. The one good thing is, if they could make this movie, even make some money with it, there may be hope for any screenwriter with a REAL idea. So, you-all take heart! I guess the same holds true of actors... if these people actually got paid, then you can, too!


James Bishop (Matt Stasi) goes to a `mental illness facility' for a medical residence assignment with Dr. McCort (Bruce Paynes). There, he realizes that many interns are being killed by `The Ripper', who takes their souls to the devil, in a cult promoted by Dr. McCort. This story is so absurd and imbecile that it is impossible to write a summary. The dialogs are so ridiculous, specially when the character of Helen, the blonde fiancé of James Bishop arrives in the asylum, that it is almost unbelievable that a writer has had the courage to include them in a screenplay. And what about the return of James to the hospital to bring the files of the dead patients? And the cast, composed of ham actors and actresses? Honestly, I do not know what or who is the worst in this film: the screenplay, the director or the cast. The correct answer certainly is all of them. I saw this flick on cable television, and I am astonished how can a producer spend money in such a garbage. This horror movie becomes very funny considering the absurd of the plot. My vote is three.

Title (Brazil): `Demônio' (`Devil')


I just watched this movie. In one word: sucky! The story is bad, the acting is, if possible, even worse. The movie has one or two nice moments, but thats it and having those two small good moments, doesn't make up for anything in between, before or after those moments. A montrocity of a movie, not even worth watching on tv...


This movie seemed like it was going to be better than it ended up being. The cinematography is good, the acting seemed solid, the dialogue wasn't too stiff... but then about twenty minutes in there's this long scene with a Doctor who you know is actually a patient at the asylum pretending to be a Doctor - and it just goes south from there.

On top of that, the demon is about the silliest looking hellspawn since the Godzilla-looking thing in Curse of the Demon. There's also some odd demon worshippers who wear masks that look like the exploding teens from the beginning of Logan's Run.

In the end, the cinematography couldn't save this movie. Despite some pretty solid performances by the actors, the story just doesn't go anywhere. I think "Hellbored" would have been a better title for this.


If there was some weird inversed Oscar Academy awards festival this flick would win it all. It has all the gods, excellent plot, extreme special effects coupled with extremely good acting skills and of course in every role there is a celebrity superstar. Well, this could be the scenario if the world was inversed, but it's not. Instead it's the worst horror flick ever made, not only bad actors that seem to read the scripts from a teleprinter with bad dyslexia, but also extremely low on special effects. For example the devil costume (which by the way is a must-see), is something of the most hilarious I've ever seen. Whenever I saw that red-black so called monster on screen I couldn't hold my laugh back. And to top of things it looked like the funny creature was transported by a conveyor-belt.

Do not do the same mistake as I did. Checking IMDB seeing that the movie was released in 2003, had less than five votes and thinking: -"Well, it's worth a shot, can't be that bad".

Yes it could.

I'm not even going to waste more words on this movie.


This had to be one of the most god awful wrestlemanias ever and is only saved by 2 matches. The hardcore match between Edge and Mick Foley, also Vince Mcmahon against Shaun Michaels. The main event between Cena and Triple H was a complete washout and to be honest I nearly fell asleep it was so actionless, the casket match was not worthy of having the Undertaker appear in it and the match between the Boogie Man and Booker T was a complete joke. If you are really a big fan of the WWE and have missed the early days of the WWF and the Wrestlemanias 17 and 19 you'll probably love this. But I found that this Wrestlemania left a lot to be desired.


Pretty crazy whodunit featuring an all black cast trying to figure out who murdered the philandering trumpet player who was just about to go to Hollywood to Make It Big. Was it his wife? His Girlfriend? His Would-Be-Girlfriend? Her Father? His Butler? The newspaper guy? Who knows? And who cares? The result of this is just a little underwhelming, and the actors here don't really get me in a mood to care one way or another finding out. Why snake venom as a weapon? Who knows? Who cares? The music in this is alright, but there's little of it, and most of it is pretty "let's get this over with" This isn't worthy of your time. There are better all-black casted movies out there.


Beautifully photographed and ably acted, generally, but the writing is very slipshod. There are scenes of such unbelievability that there is no joy in the watching. The fact that the young lover has a twin brother, for instance, is so contrived that I groaned out loud. And the "emotion-light bulb connection" seems gimmicky, too.

I don't know, though. If you have a few glasses of wine and feel like relaxing with something pretty to look at with a few flaccid comedic scenes, this is a pretty good movie. No major effort on the part of the viewer required. But Italian film, especially Italian comedy, is usually much, much better than this.


In modern day Eastern Europe life is hard and for young women prostitution is one of the only career options and one taken, reluctantly, by Melania. She attracts the attentions of an American, Seymour, who becomes obsessed with her, paying more and more money for time with her until he eventually wants to buy her outright. She has two pimps with differring emotional attachments to her and she is generally passed around like some piece of baggage with no feelings of her own. However, we are in "modern art-house cinema" territory, so conventions like narrative structure, lighting the subject so it can be seen, camera techniques that add to rather than distract from the action and a vaguely consistent plot can all be abandoned. Much of the time I had no idea what was supposed to be happening and very rarely did I care. People began leaving the screening almost before the last latecomers had arrived and I don't think I've ever seen so many people walk out.

Images are important to the director - characters slowly emerge from or disappear into a dark screen, we get long lingering shots of nothing in particular and one sex scene takes place in infra-red. In fact for such an unconventional film the sex scenes were remarkably ordinary; missionary positions between naked people in bed abounded and there were no drugs or related weirdness. But perhaps these days being ordinary is unconventional.

On the whole, almost entirely without merit.


As a veteran of many, many pretentious French films I thought I'd taken the worst the industry had to offer and was able to stomach anything. But not this. Pointless, relentless, violent, unpleasant, meaningless ... The film has nothing to offer and is random hatred and aggression dressed up as pretentious art. Avoid at all costs.


There is no way to avoid a comparison between The Cat in the Hat and The Grinch Who Stole Christmas, so let's get that part out of the way. First of all, let me start by saying that I think Grinch was an underrated and unappreciated film. Cat was... well, just awful.

Jim Carey was cast because he is a brilliant physical comedian, and fearlessly commits to over the top, outrageous characters. Mike Myers fell back on his old bag of tricks.

Why, why, why Mike Myers?? The kids could care less, and the Austin Powers demographic isn't going to spy this film. So, what was the studio thinking?

The Cat was also apparently related to Linda Richmond. Can we talk? Why a New York Accent? Not entirely consistent with anything Dr. Seuss has ever written. Myers was even allowed to sneak in his Scottish shtick. I wonder how many different voices the director and the studio tried to edit out of before they just gave in and said "as long as you don't say fahklempt', you can keep the accents." Meyers never seemed to find any sort of comfort, either with the costume, make-up, or dialogue.

The jokes, what few there were, were crude and age inappropriate. When Myers picks up a garden hoe and delivers to the camera: "dirty ho", everything but the rim shot was missing, and even that wouldn't have helped.

The same folks who created 'Whoville', clearly had a hand in the creation of the town and the houses in 'Cat'. The sets and props were very appealing, giving the viewer a much needed distraction from the bad writing, direction, and Myers.

There was some fun to be had with Alec Baldwin and Kelly Preston. Dakota Fanning was the only actor who seemed to be aware she was in a movie based on a Dr. Seuss classic, and stayed true to the genre.

Call the SPCA. This Cat should be neutered and never be allowed to reproduce again. Please, please, no sequel.


Another of my delves into the bargain bin, this movie gave me exactly what I expected - a load of trashy horror complete with screaming ladies.

It all started so well - I liked the little intro with the "newsreel" about the young couple being exposed to a nuclear blast, and was totally absorbed right up until the first person caught fire...

From then onwards the film descended into outright silliness, and at times became almost embarrassing to watch. When the heroine turned out to have been afflicted with the same condition as the main character (the ability to light one's own farts without the aid of a match) it seemed almost as if someone had thrown the idea in at the last moment ("that'll be good!" you can almost hear them say...) As for the almost psychic link between the main character and the nuclear power plant, well...

The movie came across as cheap tat - if you pay more than £1.50 for it you've been done.


This a fascinatingly awful movie. It make so little sense that it starts to make a kind of weird internal logic of its own. Well, it would if it didn't keep darting off up side-alleys until eventually floundering under the weight of its own indecisiveness. The movie can't make up its mind whether it is a straight forward 'Man Turns Into Monster' flick (like all those 1950s 'THE INCREDIBLE insert verb ING MAN' movies), or a ghastly big business conspiracy theory movie, or a mystical afterlife contact story, or... or what? Take your pick. It's just a mess. Grotesquely over the top and firing off in all directions, leaving loose ends flapping all over the place. It was as if Tobe Hooper had been taking David Lynch pills. Unfortunately he didn't take enough.


how can a director that makes such great films as poltergeist and the texas chainsaw massacre make such rubbish as this? i got this film off a friend and he didnt want it back its so bad. how this can be classed as horror i will never know.

2/10


Poor Tobe Hopper. He directed an all time horror classic "Texas Chaimsaw Massacre". Since then everything he's done has been horrible. This is probably the worst...and that's saying a lot. It's about a man (Brad Dourif) who has the ability to make things (and people) catch fire...or something like that. Hardly an original idea (anyone remember "Firestarter"?) It's a real mess...literally EVERYTHING is done wrong! Pathetic acting (even Dourif!), asinine script, loust production values, crappy special effects...everything is BAD!!!!! A must miss...not even good for laughs.


Jeux d'enfants or how the film was wrongly translated into English Love me if You Dare is a film made by stupid people and about stupid people. I just don't know how I could expect something worth a look from a film with such plot: Two stupid ignorant kids make a bet that each of them will do something (certainly extremely idiotic) to prove to each other (wtf?) that they are "cool dudes". I know that i exaggerated some aspects but that is what the entire film is about. They grow older...and instead of realizing that they are just a couple of alienated weirdos continue to perform their crazy things, thinking that they are great people.

One could expect such a film from Hollywood, but France? It is even more offensive to watch the film from the country which created Amelie a couple of years ago, which, btw, the film tries to look like but is far, extremely far away from.

Avoid. Avoid. Avoid.


I really disliked this movie....mainly because of the main characters! They are both immature, selfish, and self-centered people. They hurt EVERYBODY around them playing their silly game. The visual effects were good but what good are they if there are no characters that you connect with or a story line that is interesting. Am I supposed to be happy when these two psycho people FINALLY consummate their love for each other?

After watching this movie I was thinking "This is supposed be the #1 smash from France?"........

*spoiler*

As for the end: GOOD RIDDANCE! They both deserve each other!


Who could possibly sympathize with these two obnoxious protagonists? What's intended to be a light, frothy comedy about neighbor children who can't give up their childhood game of dare even as they age well into adulhood, comes off more as an exercise in cruelty and petulant self-indulgence. As children, the pair are unbearably precocious; as adults they're intolerably immature. It's a bad combination.


This movie is just boring.

It tries to copy some effects borrowed to a creative director like Jeunet in "Amélie Poulain", but it is too much. The dialogs are pretty bad, some of the worst I have ever heard, Guillaume Canet is not convincing (I have almost never found him very convincing), his father in the movie plays very badly, the story is dumb, the ending is... stupid.

I think I have not dislike a movie so much since "le pacte des loups" (brotherhood of the wolf) from Christophe Gans (and I watch / see about 80-100 movies a year), but at least that movie had some action and lots of good actors.

I had never commented here (only rated), and when I saw the rating and the comments, I thought I had to write something down.

I guess we won't have problems to sell the DVD we were offered : not such a bad movie in our (large) collection !!!

I am open minded (I watch SF, westerns, drama, comedies, silents, horror, fantasy... movies !), but this movie was so boring that I felt like I had lost one hour and a half.


Ummm, please forgive me, but weren't more than half the characters missing? In the original novel, Valjean is a man imprisoned for 19 years for stealing a loaf of bread and then attempting several times to escape. He breaks parole and is pursued relentlessly by the police inspector Javert. Along the way there are MANY characters that weren't in this version. Some worth mentioning would be Fantine, Cosette, M & Mme. Thenardier, Eponine, Marius, Gavroche, and Enjolras. The only character with the same name is Javert. I was confused and frustrated throughout the whole movie, trying to see how it was in any way connected to Victor Hugo's epic novel.


An innocent man (Steve Guttenberg) has a one-night stand with his boss's wife (Isabelle Huppert). She spots a woman (Elizabeth McGovern) being attacked outside but she can't call the cops because it would blow her marriage to Gutenberg's boss (Paul Shenar). So Guttenberg, honest citizen that he is, when he discovers that another woman was attacked and killed nearby only half an hour later, comes forward and claims to have witnessed the first attack, merely intending to pass on the information given to him by Huppert. Well -- never bear false witness against thy neighbor, as they say.

This simple attempt to help the police nab a murderer turns rapidly twisted. When he meets the first near-victim, McGovern, she immediately twigs to what happened, but agrees to keep quiet for the moment. But then Guttenberg finds himself in court, supposed to identify the heavy (Greenquist) and we discover through cross-examination that he is NEAR-SIGHTED and can't identify objects at a distance, let alone faces. (Not that it matters because, after all, he never saw the creep in the first place.) The plot gets practically labyrinthine. Guttenberg winds up the chief suspect when Huppert is murdered too.

He barely escapes arrest and holes up with the now-sympathetic McGovern. Guttenberg and McGovern hatch a plan to trap the murderer. She will serve as bait. They'll follow the flagitious creep into one of his seedy haunt and McGovern will act like the doxy that the murderer is attracted to, just to get him to try to kill her. But everything will be okay, see, because not only will Guttenberg keep a close watch on her, and not only will he alert the police a few minutes after she enters this dive, but she will keep a can of mace handy -- just in case.

I ask you, the alert viewer, does this scenario unfold as planned? Elizabeth McGovern has a quirkily interesting bone structure. She seems all mandible and tiny mouth at times, but she's vibrant. Steve Guttenberg has hair on his brawn and that's about it. Otherwise he's as helpless as the character he plays. If Isabelle Huppert can act, it isn't evident in this film. The killer is so formed and so groomed that he looks like he's wearing one of those masks of deformity in that Twilight Zone episode about greedy heirs.

Didn't the director, Curtis Hanson, go on to make "L.A. Confidential"? That was a nicely done piece of work. Here, everything seems clumsy and contrived, down to the small bit parts. Just before the inevitable violent climax, a uniformed police officer is introduced to delay McGovern's rescue, and the scene is embarrassing to watch. Dick Olsen has a bit part as a late shopper. He's a neat guy and always reliable. Paul Shenar as the cuckolded hubby has a striking face that seems made for the stage and he does a fine job too.

That louche joint where McGovern attracts the attention of the murderer, where she plays pool with a couple of hairy apes, was shot at a bar in Carolina Beach, in North Carolina, not far from where I lived. The way the interior is set up, it's clear that this is supposed to be a dangerous and dirty dive. Actually it appears rather more elegant on screen than it did in reality.

Overall, this is Hitchcock territory and it brings tears to the eyes to imagine what he would have done with this story.


A pretty obvious thriller-by-numbers, in which the only possible twist turns out to be a hiding to nothing. I was watching principally for the English-language performance by Isabelle Huppert. It wasn't great, but then it was a strange role. I wouldn't be surprised if half her contribution turned out to have been left on the cutting-room floor along with several last minute script re-writes.

The acting is the least appealing thing about this film. Steve Guttenburg looks like he's trying to flesh out his role with the charm that everyone's told him he has. There's a sensationally stupid sequence in which it's suggested that his sexual prowess will be able to help treat PTSD. It's an uninteresting performance. Elizabeth McGovern is more of a draw with genuine charm and character but it's small consolation. 3/10


This is, without doubt, one of the worst films I've ever seen...

The plot is so full of holes, the story is like a bad remake of a bad suspense movie and the actors sound like were reading directly from the manuscript for the first time. Worst of all is Steve Guttenberg. He plays his character like he was in "Police Academy" - the same foolish womanizer - and that's not suited for a leading man in what should have been a thriller.

It's really hard to believe that Hanson would make "L.A. Confidential" ten years later...

Avoid this like the plague...


This program is really overrated. A detective like Danny Pino's hot-headed character would have been transferred to the "rubber gun squad" years ago. The whole squad is made up of sanctimonious egomaniacs who judge people whose actions go back decades by the standards of 2007. Every Vietnam veteran character they've ever had has turned out to be the killer, unless it was another Vietnam veteran. There has only been one black murderer, and he was put up to it by his white boss. The only Hispanic killer was a "race traitor" who killed another Hispanic to frame a Hispanic street kid for a crime that (naturally) two rich white kids committed. What a bunch of propaganda. Hey,screenwriters: minorities and poor people commit murder too. Only on this show are most murderers upper-class whites.

What's more, the arrests of people in their 70s, 80s, and 90s for crimes they committed 50-60 years ago are a joke. No real-life DA will push for murder one because it means the state will be stuck with their humongous medical bills until they finally kick. The state would be doing their families and insurance companies a favor. The prosecutor will just plead them to involuntary manslaughter and they won't serve a day. The only really old criminals who go to prison are either organized crime figures or ex-Nazis, whose high-profile convictions boost DA's careers.


I hate this programme: not only is the very concept ludicrous, but it tries so hard to be feasible (something that was left out of similar "I confess" ending programmes like, Muder: She Wrote).

Sigh. Why is it that the writers can't ever be intelligent enough in this programme to come up with evidence that would stick and win a decision in court?

Come on: after X-amount of years of the cases being unsolved, why must EVERY SUSPECT, EVERY EPISODE *CONFESS* (damn it!) to a murder which would otherwise go unsolved?

I bet all police wish that criminals were this good sportsmen: "Aw, shucks, officer, you're a bright one - I guess if you've uncovered enough to convince yourself I did it, I may as well admit to it and make it easier for you in court. What can I say? It's a fair cop."

Absolute dog s**t and an insult to those of us with with enough brains to even have heard of I.Q.


The first time I watched Cold Case was after it had run for about a year on Danish television. At the time it came to the TV it nearly drowned in 4 or 5 other American crime shows aired roughly the same time.

I saw it and I was bored to death. The substandard actors with the self righteous faces and morals were a pain in the behind. The entire premise that so much money was given a team of investigators to solve murders dating back 10-20-30 or even 60 years seems so unlikely.

The time is also a factor as they only have 50-60 min to tell the story which means that they get a break through just in the nick of time to solve the case and bring justice to surviving family members, if they are still alive. This combined with the "personal" problems and relations of the investigators which there HAS to be time for leaves the show a complete lackluster.

I give it a 2-star rating because of the music i the end which is really the only reason for watching it....which you then of course won't do as that is TOO lame a reason for watching this crap.


This movie is one of the most wildly distorted portrayals of history. Horribly inaccurate, this movie does nothing to honor the hundreds of thousands of Dutch, British, Chinese, American and indigenous enslaved laborers that the sadistic Japanese killed and tortured to death. The bridge was to be built "over the bodies of the white man" as stated by the head Japanese engineer. It is disgusting that such unspeakable horrors committed by the Japanese captors is the source of a movie, where the bridge itself, isn't even close to accurate to the actual bridge. The actual bridge was built of steel and concrete, not wood. What of the survivors who are still alive today? They hate the movie and all that it is supposed to represent. Their friends were starved, tortured, and murdered by cruel sadists. Those that didn't die of dysantry, starvation, or disease are deeply hurt by the movie that makes such light of their dark times.


A response to previous comments made by residents of the region where this motion picture was lensed: One person suggested that the closing and destruction of the Ocean View Amusement Park led to a downturn in the surrounding neighborhoods. This is simply not true. Prior to the construction of Interstate 64, which bypasses the Ocean View area, the primary route for traffic went through the heart of Ocean View. Once the interstate was completed, Ocean View rapidly became a ghost town with businesses closing up and an increase in crime. This led to a huge reduction in revenues for the park, which also faced new competition from nearby Busch Gardens in Williamsburg. Meanwhile, in the past few years, the City of Norfolk has done a remarkable job of fostering redevelopment so that the area has become a sought-after location for construction of high-end housing.

It has also been said that the destruction footage of the roller coaster was used in the film "Rollercoaster". This is also untrue. Footage was shot of two coaster cars careening off the ride for that film, but the actual explosions and collapse are exclusive to "Death of Ocean View Park".

As to the film itself, the storyline of a "supernatural" force in the water adjacent to the park was certainly silly, but somewhat typical for B-grade movies of the time. With the cast involved, there should be no surprise that the scenery was gnawed in almost every scene by the primary actors. I don't believe this film was intended to be another "Citizen Kane"; I believe Playboy was experimenting with a new non-nude format to determine if this was an area for the company to expand into (apparently not!). A strange force in the water causing strange events in an old amusement park probably sounded good at the conference table, but proved unmanageable in execution. The roller coaster and the rest of the park was destined for the wrecking ball anyway; "let's come up with a weird way to justify an explosive demise!".

For the casual movie viewer, this would be a "see once and forget about it" film (except for Diana Canova fans); but for the thousands of people who live in the region and have fond memories of the park, this movie is like a "walk down memory lane" for footage of the park as well as old footage of downtown Norfolk, the first "Harborfest", and Old Dominion University. Even a limited release of this film on DVD would be welcome.


It's obvious that the people who made 'Dead At The Box Office' love B-movie horror. Overt references to the genre are peppered throughout, from stock characters (the authority figure who doesn't believe the monstrous invasion is really happening) to Kevin Smith style discussions to reenacting Duane Jones' last moments from 'Night of the Living Dead' not once but twice.

Unfortunately it takes more than love to make a good movie.

The staging and shot choice are unexciting and unimaginative. While a common admonition in film school is to avoid 'Mastershot Theatre,' telling the story completely in a wide master shot, here we find the obverse as in several sequences it's hard to figure out the spatial relationships between characters as the story is told in a series of medium shots with no establishing shot to tie it together. Editing is drab and basic and at times there are unmotivated cuts. The lighting is flat and sometimes muddy, making the scenes in the darkened theatre hard to make out (was there lighting, or was this shot with available light only?). Some shots are out of focus. The dialogue is trite, and the performances, for the most part, one-note (Isaiah Robinson shows some energy and screen presence as Curtis, and the fellow playing the projectionist has some pleasantly dickish line readings; Michael Allen Williams as the theater manager and Casey Kirkpatrick as enthusiastic film geek Eric have some nice moments). The premise is silly, even for a B horror flick (Also, it's too bad Dr Eisner was unaware of Project Paperclip - he could've saved himself a lot of trouble!). The 'zombies' are non-threatening, and their makeup is unconvincing (although the chunky zombie trying to get a gumball out of the machine raised a smile). For a zombie fan film, there is very little blood or violence, although what there is, is handled pretty well. The incidental music, while stylistically uneven, is kind of nice at times, and there are some good foley effects. The 'Time Warp' parody was a fun listen, although the images going along with it were less fun to watch. Unfortunately, the looped dialogue sounds flat. Was this shot non-sync (doubtful, it looks like video through and through)? I watched the special introduction by Troma Films' Lloyd Kaufman before the main feature - although it consisted essentially of Kaufman plugging his own stuff and admitting that he hadn't seen the movie while someone mugged in a Toxie mask, its production and entertainment values were higher than 'Dead...' itself (quick aside to whoever put the DVD together - the countdown on film leader beeps only on the flash-frame 2, not on every number plus one more after). For that matter, the vampire film theatregoers are seen watching early in 'Dead...' looked a lot more entertaining than this. Recommendation to avoid, unless you know someone involved in the production or are an ardent Lloyd Kaufman completist (he plays 'Kaufman the Minion' in the film-within-a-film).

(Full disclosure: my girlfriend is an extra in this movie. I swear this did not color my review.)


30 seconds into the opening credits, I had this feeling that this was going to be a bad movie, but I didn't know just how bad. Then the actor playing the evil Nazi scientist opens his mouth and my friend and I decide that in order to survive this movie, we'll have to turn the volume down, make up our own dialogue and double the speed on the DVD. But that didn't help. About half way through we turned it off. Now, I've lived through some very bad movies before, both with and without the aide of "Mystery Science Theater 3000" and "Svengoolie," but there are just some movies which I doubt even the Bots can save. The biggest part of the movie that bothered me the most was that the people hypnotized into believing they're zombies had rotting green skin. I guess they were all hypnotized into death, then hypnotized into rotting themselves. Stick to the real B-movie cult classics like "Plan Nine From Outer Space."


When the employees of a theater find an old reel of film, they decide to show it at the midnight screening of Night of the Living Dead, assuming it's an old preview reel. Unfortunately, it's actually an old Nazi mind control experiment that turns the audience into a horde of mindless shuffling zombies.

I can't understand the hate for this movie. It is a low budget independent production with a lot of camp, but it doesn't deserve a "1.1" here on IMDb. It is just so much fun. It is obvious that the filmmakers have a reasonable knowledge and love of old horror movies, and they have created an entertaining tribute to them sprinkled with references and homages to a variety of them. It has the feel of such things as Night of the Living Dead (in many ways, very similar), Evil Dead 2 and Army of Darkness, and various others.

I liked the explanation of how the zombies, though really just hypnotized into thinking they are zombies, actually come to have the physical attributes of the living dead-unbelievable, perhaps, but I appreciate the effort by the writers to explain it. The gore effects were decent for the budget, the acting was all right, and the story was entertaining.

I liked it.


This wasn't what i wanted to see. I bought this on DVD and under the movie i found myself irritated and turned off the movie for a moment.

Heres what i didn't like:

1 They were shooting at the father

2 The tribes was really annoying

3 the dinosaurs (mostly)looked to faked

4 The bad scientist well he was annoying

5 The picture quality on the DVD was really bad

What i DID like:

1 The music by Jerry Goldsmith. This music is really great. I have the bootleg soundtrack from this movie. Sadly the sound quality is not good, but its OK for its time.

2 The first time we see the dinosaurs they inspire a sort of awe.

3 Baby is kinda cute when he is in the water and is playing

4 That funny scene with the tent.

5 The children who sees this film would hopefully learn that evil always loses.


... and I actually gave it a ZERO on my personal 1-10 scale. I have been attending movies since 1952 and have seen well over 1000 in the theater (I don't rate movies that I see only on TV). This is the ONLY movie I have ever rated ZERO.

My wife and I took our four children (then aged 15, 11, 8 and 6) and even the kids thought it was terrible. In fact, it was my daughter (now 26) who alerted me to this site (amazed that the movie was getting an overall rating of 4+).

The animation of the dinosaurs looked amateurish at the time (and is even worse in retrospect), the acting (particularly by Sean Young) is atrocious and the story line is simply silly.


I saw the movie as a child when it was released in the theater and it was so bad that it became the makings of a family joke. If the ranking had a zero, this movie would get it. The dinosaurs were awful. The storyline was ridiculous. The acting really doesn't qualify to be called acting. The only reason I even remember the name of the movie so well is because my family still talks about how BAD it really was.


Okay, if you have a couple hours to waste, or if you just really hate your life, I would say watch this movie. If anything it's good for a few laughs. Not only do you have obese, topless natives, but also special effects so bad they are probably outlawed in most states. Seriuosly, the rating of 'PG' is pretty humorous too, once you see the Native Porn Extravaganza. I wouldn't give this movie to my retarded nephew. You couldn't even show this to Iraqi prisoners without violating the Geneva Convention. The plot is sketchy, and cliché, and dumb, and stupid. The acting is horrible, and the ending is so painful to watch I actually began pouring salt into my eye just to take my mind off of the idiocy filling my TV screen.


For those who are too young to know this or for those who have forgotten, the Disney company went almost down the tubes by the end of the 1980s. People were NOT seeing their movies anymore and the company was not producing the usual wholesome material....at least no what people expected. A major problem: profanity.

Yes, the idiots running the Disney movies during that decade would produce films with swear words - including the Lord's name in vain, if you can believe that - interspersed in these "family films." In fact that happens twice here in the first 20 minutes!

This movie, in addition to the language problems, has a nasty tone to it, too, which made it unlikeable almost right from the beginning. Thankfully, Disney woke up and has produced a lot of great material since these decadent '80s movies. ("Touchstone" is Disney, just under another name.)


I don't think this movie was rated correctly. I took my copy and blacked out the PG rating and wrote down R. I would NOT recommend this for anyone under 17 or 18, whatever the R limit is.

Why? It contains a scene in the jungle with several topless Indian women. I don't know about you, but that's not something for little children to be watching. True, it might be the traditional "clothing style" of the African (?) Indians, but... I think partial nudity should give a movie an R rating.

I haven't seen the movie recently, but I guess otherwise, it was alright.


A really bad sequel. Part 1 had a lot of funny moments - part 2 is just bad (in a boring way) and obviously made to squeeze money out of the fans.

Shame on you, Otto Waalkes!

The only slightly amusing moment in the film is Helge Schneider who apparently seems to be pis*ed about the other characters. It's quite easy to identify with him...

The screenplay is sloppy/non-existent. The director should do everyone a favor and quit his job immediately. The acting is worse than a 2nd grade school play.

Technically the movie is awful as well, but who can blame the cinematographer/sound guys who had to work with such an untalented director?


I agree with most of the other guys. A waste of photons and valuable time.

Nearly no joke is worth the paper is was written on. The only highlight from my pov is Olli Dittrich as Pinocchio. ("Egal, ich muss eh Waldsterben") This reminds of old times with RTL Samstag Nacht. It is hard to describe the performances of the actors, since most of them don't even seem to have a good time during production and just "do their thing". Camera is OK, plot is laughable, I think you would be ashamed even if you discuss this with lots of beers.

Apart from this I yawned all the time, wondered about how a script like this could even be considered for production and waited for the end.

My 9 year old son was pleased, but then he is pleased by so little at this age :-)

Anyway, a 1 point rating here nearly is 1 point too much...


Despite what a lot of other people thought about the first movie, I really liked it. This one however. How to sum it up in one word?: This movie is (and here comes the word): CRAP!

But let's look at it part by part: Here is the plot: Finally the old queen has been removed from her castle, but her successor: Snow white has problems of another sort: The Court-Jester, Father of her son, has gone astray, as the super, Spliss, goes to the extreme, to battle his gray hair and sells the royal offspring for some blond and full hair. In her desperation Snow white seeks the help of Bubi (Otto Walkees),who must first find his other six dwarf companions and then try to find the royal offspring or at least try to find the name of Rumpelstiltskin.

The whole plot seems to have been written on a weekend, where the writers were very drunk but were just under pressure from the studio to write the screenplay.

Yes, there are some good jokes. Even for fans of the first part, or for fans of any of the other actors, it's really not worth buying the the DVD. Believe me.

The only thing, that at least kind of saves the movie from complete oblivion, are the performances of some of the actors. That's why I gave the move 3/10. Sadly, the script is so bad that none of the actors or all of them combined can make up for the bad story.

For example, at one point, they even cross over in our reality, and sadly.. they don't do anything funny while being here.

Still, a lot of great actors in this movie: Otto Waalkes, Ralf Schmitz, Martin Schneider, Nina Hagen, Cosma Shiva Hagen, (Especially funny): Rüdiger Hoffmann as the mirror, Helge Schneider and many more but sadly all these comedians aren't able to bring this really bad script to life.

Maybe it is a treat for some hardcore fans but for regular movie goers or by now DVD Renters or buyers it's not worth the money.

I even regret renting the movie.


There are a lot of highly talented filmmakers/actors in Germany now. None of them are associated with this "movie".

Why in the world do producers actually invest money in something like this this? You could have made 10 good films with the budget of this garbage! It's not entertaining to have seven grown men running around as dwarfs, pretending to be funny. What IS funny though is that the film's producer (who happens to be the oldest guy of the bunch) is playing the YOUNGEST dwarf.

The film is filled with moments that scream for captions saying "You're supposed to laugh now!". It's hard to believe that this crap's supposed to be a comedy.

Many people actually stood up and left the cinema 30 minutes into the movie. I should have done the same instead of wasting my time...

Pain!


I've seen the first of the dwarf-Movies and sometimes I had little fun watching it. There are many famous TV/Comedyactors appearing in the first part and presented, in fantasy costumes, typical little episodes of their Stand-Up-Program and exactly that is the problem the second movie has to struggle with. Everything was already there....nothing new to obtain. You're familiar with most of the often boring and dumb "jokes" and you always feel like their goal was to put in every Comedylooser of the last decade who wants to get back on stage. There's nothing important about the story: typical fairy-tale story of Rumpelstiltskin, without any importance. I expected something like that but that's nothing I could complain about. I'm actually complaining about the lazy story writers who had an entire background story; their only business was to get many jokes and parodies inside but they didn't get it anyway. This crap is except the great appearance of Helge Schneider a total waste of time and money.(if you don't like him then remove 2 points of my evaluation) If you like to save your money and get bad jokes then watch the crap that's broad casted every Friday evening on SAT1 or RTL for free. I'm sure you will recognize some "laugthers" I saw last night in cinema.


I guess I have still enough brain left to NOT find this movie funny. -Great comedians - but a very poor movie! The "best" performance still did NINA HAGEN

TRIVIA: Did you realize that it the "real world" scenes (in Hamburg) the cars are almost ONLY new BMWs ??

I guess I have still enough brain left to NOT find this movie funny. -Great comedians - but a very poor movie! The "best" performance still did NINA HAGEN

TRIVIA: Did you realize that it the "real world" scenes (in Hamburg) the cars are almost ONLY new BMWs ??


WARNING! Don't even consider watching this film in any form. It's not even worth downloading from the internet. Every bit of porn has more substance than this wasted piece of celluloid. The so-called filmmakers apparently have absolutely no idea how to make a film. They couldn't tell a good joke to save their lives. It's an insult to any human being. If you're looking for a fun-filled movie - go look somewhere else.

Let's hope this Mr. Unterwaldt (the "Jr." being a good indication for his obvious inexperience and intellectual infancy) dies a slow/painful death and NEVER makes a film again.

In fact, it's even a waste of time to WRITE ANYTHING about this crap, that's why I'll stop right now and rather watch a good film.


Otto Preminger directs this light as a feather story. Bohemian Jean Seberg and her equally bohemian widower father David Niven holiday in the South of France with nutty Mylène Demongeot. Things are fine until family friend Deborah Kerr shows up. Nivens, a degenerate womanizer, finds the conquest of Kerr too hard to resist. That's fine with Seberg, as long as Niven loves her and leaves her (as he's done with all the women in his past...including Demongeot). When it appears as though she's becoming second banana in Niven's life, Seberg exact revenge on Kerr. Preminger tells the story in flashbacks from Seberg's perspective and cleverly combines black and white with sunnier color scenes. The cinematography by Georges Périnal is stunning. The film features some of Preminger's least heavy-handed direction, although he rarely allows any close-ups, which makes it difficult to make out what the actors are really feeling. Arthur Laurents wrote the script and it's full of acidic dialog and funny scenes (mostly involving bird-brained Demongeot). Seberg acquits herself fairly well, but Niven is at his least appealing...and he shows no chemistry with either Seberg or Kerr. Preminger really mis-steps with that casting. It's a role that seems tailor made for someone closer to Charles Boyer. With Geoffrey Horne as Seberg's would-be suitor and Martita Hunt as his daffy mother. Juliette Gréco, playing herself, sings the title song in a Paris nightclub. The great titles are by Preminger regular Saul Bass.


The over-heated plot of "Bonjour tristesse" is taken from a juvenile first novel by Francoise Sagan, which became a best-seller, though God knows why. For teenagers wanting to get rid of a potential step-parent it may have a certain appeal. Don't be taken in by the fact that David Niven plays the playboy father and Deborah Kerr the step-mother-in- prospect. Unfortunately, too much rests on the frail shoulders of Jean Seberg. She's beautiful and easily fulfills the image of a spoiled teenager. The problem is that she can strike poses but she can't act. Anyone who saw her as Joan of Arc in Otto Preminger's St. Joan -- Seberg's first film -- knows she was incapable at 19 of carrying a film. This movie, also by Preminger, fulfills the "promise" of the first. It was her second movie; she was now 20. What was Preminger thinking? That Niven and Kerr could compensate for Seberg's lack of acting capacity? Not a chance? Seberg's character is at the center of the story and, pretty though she is, convincing though she may be physically as a 17 year old, she can't meet the emotional demands of the role. I don't know if she ever became a successful actress in her short life because she did not have an impact on my consciousness in her later pictures. But anyone who thinks this film is better than mediocre needs a taste check. In spite of Niven and Kerr, this remains a juvenile story executed in juvenile fashion by a beautiful young girl who badly needed acting lessons.


Bonjour Tristesse covers similar ground as 'The Member of the Wedding.' to wit, a possessive daughter tries to prevent a relationship from forming between a beloved family member and an interloper. While critics love 'Member of the Wedding,' I find Julie Harris to be a jumbo-drag and an adenoidal, scenery-chomping thespian in everything she's been in. This portrays irritating, rich idiots as in Last Year at Marienbad, but this time it's a travelogue.

In this Preminger movie sequences develop, but characters do not. For the first 30 minutes he's content to blur the father-daughter relationship between Seberg and Niven, making uncomfortable sexual readings possible. Once the conflict is introduced, Seberg can't deliver the depth the part requires. Kerr pulls rank and turns the film into 'Endless Love.' Seberg's vacuous narration, is like something out of Strange Interlude - it is not good. I really wish someone other than Niven was in his role. He spends so much time normalizing orthodox British behavior in all his movies, he never gets around to the character.

In the most memorable sequence, an evening out dancing becomes a free-for-all in a harbor. Bertolucci steals the entire scene for his empty exercise, 'The Conformist.' Kerr is on board to clasp her hands and portray another major pain (as in Black Narcissus, Night of the Iguana, King and I, Heaven Knows Mr. Allyson, Tea and Sympathy, etc. etc.). Really, Kerr was a horrible actress. I wish every movie with her could end with a fatal car crash, or even better, start with one.

People uncomfortable with ambiguity should avoid this.


This is shallow hedonism and/or social commentary wrapped in a tragic tale about a jealous young woman's scheme to drive apart her father and his fiancée. Is it incest or just a view through the eyes of a daughter with an Electra complex? Who cares? All of the characters, except for Anne (Deborah Kerr) are vacuous and vile. Seberg is poor (I agree with the "boys with breasts" comment of an earlier review). The plot plodded. This predictable material was sufficient for about 30 minutes of film that unfortunately was stretched over an hour and a half! If you want to see great gowns and jewels on the Riviera, I recommend "To Catch a Thief" - in which you will get the added bonuses of an entertaining story and likable characters.

I like for films to entertain me. I personally don't really care where a film is set. Whatever the time or place, I want a good story - comedy or drama. I also want to see some enjoyable characters. It doesn't hurt if I can relate to them. Poor Deborah Kerr gives a typically good performance, and so does David Niven in a despicable role.

The "2" rating is solely for Kerr and Niven, and for the cinematography - the rich color scenes and the murky, foreboding black and white scenes. Unfortunately, all the great cinematography in the world cannot salvage a poor story with un-enjoyable characters. A sow's ear is still a sow's ear. Consequently watching this mess was a serious waste of my time.


Jean Seberg had not one iota of acting talent. Like all her films, 'Bonjour tristesse' suffers not at all from her looks (though she is perhaps the first of those modern women whom Tom Wolfe gleefully, accurately describes as "boys with breasts": publicists, of course, use the word "gamine") but suffers grievously from Seberg's dull, monotonous, killing voice. In all her films when had to play anger, Seberg played it with grossly audible, distracting, gasping panting between her monotonously droned verbalizations. Oy.

Preminger's adaptation of Françoise Sagan's breathlessly juvenile, fantasy soap opera plot is noteworthy only for his lush cinematography - but then that's difficult to funk on the photogenic French Riviera, and perhaps for his apt, but certainly not groundbreaking, employment of black & white for the present day scenes from which Seberg's monotone narration delivers us to the flashed-back-to color past.

Juliette Gréco has a brief moment, as a nightclub chanteuse in the black & white spotlight, delivering in smoky Dietrichesque voice the bleak existentialist lyric of the title song. This moment is nowadays, in retrospect, more than a wee bit drôle. Except, of course, if you're French - particularly if you're a French "68-er" longing for the glorious days of the barricades roundabout the Sorbonne - and your kids riot to retain the lifelong sinecures which have blighted and emasculated France's economy: then you still believe in Sartre and Foucault and all such arcane, irrelevant theorists.

David Niven has the hardest role, having to play with sufficient gusto an aging hedonist who's yet to grasp that life isn't all about Sagan's teenybopper notions of a hip, cool, swingin', "mon copain!" Papa. Deborah Kerr delivers her usual, consummately professional presence, convincingly playing the woman who suffers undeservedly Seberg's spiteful teenaged snot-nose jealousy (fulfilling Sagan's shallow teen fantasy of the Classical theme of "there can be only one Queen Bee in the hive"); in fact, to Kerr belongs this film's sole great and memorable on-screen moment.

The dialogue is unnatural - I agree with an earlier reviewer who said that it sounds to be "badly translated" from French; combine the unnatural scripting with Seberg's incomparably dull, unendurable monotone and you can save that Valium for another night. Atop all that the ineptly synched post-production voice dubbing is, almost throughout, obvious and thus much more than irksome: this is especially true of the dubbing for Mylène Demongeot because it spoils her otherwise very pleasing dumb blonde performance.

Hunky Geoffrey Horne gets the short end of the stick here - a very good looking young man who also suffered from a less-than-lovely, uncinematic voice which, when paired with Seberg's drone, yields unconvincing scenes of puppy love. (Horne was, shall we say, merely adequate in 'Bridge On the River Kwai,' perhaps because his end was held up by those great cinema pros William Holden and Jack Hawkins instead of being unsupported by the regrettably ungifted Seberg).

In sum 'Bonjour tristesse' is pretty to look at but it's shallow, immature soap: thin gruel with suds.


In one respect, it's like 'The Wizard of Oz,' with Paris in black-and-white and the Riviera in color. But it's supposedly about possessive love, destructiveness and moral decadence, while actually being about designer gowns, shots of the Riveria, lots of big expensive cars, and music-and dancing interludes that suggest Vincente Minnelli on one of his off-days. Watchable, but a remarkable example of desperate, dark plot material and glitzy style heading in opposite directions. (Was this the model for 'The Talented Mister Ripley? Does anyone sense an affinity between Jean Seberg and Matt Damon?)