waste of my life, .... the director should be embarrassed. why people feel they need to make worthless movies will never make sense to me. when she died at the end, it made me laugh. i had to change the channel many times throughout the film because i was getting embarrassed watching such poor acting. hopefully the guy who played Heath never gets work again. On top of that i hope the director never gets to make another film, and has his paycheck taken back for this crap. { .02 out of 10 }


Dane tries to hard and is to extreme with all of his yelling and going crazy, spilling water on himself and rolling on the floor. To much. Calm down, get yourself together and make us laugh. I didn't quite understand his comparison toward comics and rock stars. Just because there both up on stage or something? He said that every comedian wants to be a rock star. I'm sure Rodney Dangerfield was really into that when he was alive. He had a few good jokes like the Burger King joke where people yell at the drive thru. I also liked the Reese's Pieces joke. If Dane just didn't act so mental he might be funnier and I might have given this a higher rating, as high as maybe an eight.


'A Smile LIke Yours' is a pathetic comedy that actually makes no sense. I don't mean that the story was complicated, but the entire plot is based on one thing: a couple's desperate and expensive unsuccessful attempts to conceive children. People who tried that hard must've forgotten of the option of the adoption, to which this movie is not kind to.

Lauren Holly plays Jennifer Robertson, a complete contradiction to anything offered by the women's liberation movement, exhibiting almost no sense of independence. She is quite a boring character as the dreamy housewife with absolutey nothing else on her mind but to have kids. Like a dumb 50's romance comedy, Greg Kinnear is her submitting husband who likewise displays no personality, no independence, and from us, no interest.

They are the two most boring and often annoying characters, and they hardly make for topics of a comedy that should present itself with many mishaps, which should arise from a couple doing all they can to get pregnant. Except, they really don't do anything except go to a fertility clinic and shell out a whole lot of money to do what they could do in the privacy of their own (except for that in vitro fertilization number). The plot hardly allows for any mishaps, because well, the couple don't do anything to create any sort of bizarre situation. They just go to this clinic. So what?

The subplots are meant to test the faithfulness of the couple, a necessary moral element of the story since the couple does plan on conceiving children together. Jennifer works at a new age shop with her friend (played by Joan Cusak), and they are in the business of developing aphrodesiacs. Christopher MacDonald plays the intrested buyer and Jennifer is the promising negotiator of a pretty price for her and her friend's product. The subplot hardly offers much to keep you interested (although Joan Cusak is pretty funny in the restaraunt scene).

Danny (Kinear) is an architect, who finds an opportunity to make some extra money to cover the clinic bills, by taking on a job in Seattle, where his boss is the crass seductress (also another hopeless, helpless female character) who tries to influence Danny (as dumb as he is) to have an affair with her once things are conveniently rocky with him and his wife (for reasons I don't care to give away). Jill Hennesy is good in the role, but her character is too predictable, and too formulaic as a much needed element to create conflict for Danny. It is stupid and once again, hardly interesting.

The overall movie itself is utterly boring, and hardly funny at all (save the restaraunt scene and the airline flight). The plot offers nothing that is really attention-grabbing. Even if the story was entirely about two people trying to conceive, the writers could've figured out several hilarious mishaps to develop out of that. Second, the main characters are completely boring. They are complete silouhettes of dumb 1950s comedies with happy wife and clueless husband. So, even without mishaps present in the plot, the characters themselves offer nothing interesting, let alone funny.

Joan Cusak should've been in the lead and someone else should've taken Kinnear's part. Cusak would've made even a lousy story outrageously funny (as she sometimes does in her co-starring role here). This is definitely one to pass up.


The best that I can say about this film is that it was mildly amusing at times, and that it was an adequate time killer. Unfortunately, this film is also so annoying that I wanted to slap these characters around. This is the kind of film that is so sweet, it hurts your teeth. The intentions were good, I suppose, but things get awfully tiresome when the dialogue is SO nauseating. When the two leads aren't together on-screen, this really isn't bad at all, but be afraid during those frequent moments when the loving couple starts talking to one another.


This is meant to be a comedy but mainly bad taste, and nothing remotely causing a smile in the film. The movie is about a couple trying for a child, and those people in real life who are in that situation will wince at the depictions that are portrayed. For instance scenes at a fertility clinic are not in the least funny and are quite frankly embarrassing. The male lead who plays a construction worker and in his hard hat comes across as a poor excuse for a reject from Village People. The female lead is trying to look 20 years younger than she is. Both leads come across as unappealing,unattractive and completely unconvincing. There are various ridiculous and totally unassuming gratuitous scenes in the film, for example with a budget airline, which is devoid of any humor. The only reason I give this 3/10 instead of 1/10 is one mark for Shirley Maclaine, who is a a class above anything else in the pic, and one mark for some half decent(albeit old) music.


This game has the(dis)honor of being the first game that I have stopped playing right in the middle of and felt like smashing into bits and then burning. Congratulations. FIRST and LAST Tomb Raider I will ever play I assure you.

Plot: Just typing that word made me laugh. There isn't one. Neither is there character development. We finally have a girl heroine who can take care of herself,who isn't a *beeping*mary-sue,but unfortunately she dresses like a slut and her breast are huge. They had to attract the sexist boy gamers you see. Anyway all she does is go in tomb after tomb shooting things as she goes along. Why she does this I have no idea. I had subtitles on and the t.v. as loud as I could and I still didn't understand a damn thing. The development(or lack there of) for her, her two friends and the*villains*were laughable. There also will be levels that you have to go through that do-not give you any hint on what you have to do next and you literally will be in most of the boring as hell tombs for HOURS trying to figure out what the hell you are supposed to be doing. There is one course(out of two) in particular with her on a motorbike(Believe me it is not at all fun)that you will be on for ATLEASE an HOUR with NO save point in sight. That means you get hit by the other motorist and guys in vans shooting at you or you hit a tree you start the hour long trek OVER.

Boss Stupid F*ck: You know lets makes the levels very long, have basically no save points, have no story, no character development, give no variety in game play, have most of the music on the longest levels ear-bleeding,and give no hints whatsoever to the player so they can stay even longer in a place instead of getting to the nonexistent plot.

Stupid F*ck one: Those sound like bang up ideas.

Stupid F*ck two: I concur. Who needs character development ,plot, or unboring game-play.

Todd: I'm sorry sir,but these ideas seem like they will extremely p*ss the player off.

Boss Stupid F*ck: Shut up Todd. You're fired.

Game-play: All she does is shoot. Of course she can flip while SHOOTING, jump while SHOOTING, or kick while again SHOOTING.But flipping, jumping, and kicking does not erase the fact that all she is ultimately doing is SHOOTING. BORING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Music: The intro music is extremely beautiful. I love listening to it. The in game music goes from tolerable to wanting to cut your ears off.

Visuals:Considering this game was made in 2006, I was expecting the visuals to blow me away.Well I was blown,but definitely not in a good way.

Bottom-line: This game is a plot-less, no character development mess with a barely dressed unmarysuish(THANKFULLY)young women in the lead that goes through boring tombs for some boring reason(what that might be I couldn't tell you)with unimaginative shooting gameplay. STAY FAR AWAY FROM THIS B.S.!!!!!!!!It's gets two stars for having a women who isn't a damsel in distress(No matter how scantily clad she might be) and the beautiful into music.


OK, plain and simple, if you are a fan of the other Tomb Raider games (yes, even AOD) KEEP AWAY FROM LEGEND.

It is, without doubt, the most disappointing TR game yet. It looks very nice, it sounds very nice, but it is totally unplayable and I've given up. I feel like I've been robbed by Eidos.

It's very simple. TR was a PC game before anything else. You control Lara using the keyboard. In 6 Tomb Raider games the controls were standard. In AOD they were 'tacky', but still the same general control sequences. In Legend they have changed her movement and control methods completely and she is totally uncontrollable.

I have seen comments elsewhere from people who say 'Use the mouse'. No, why should I? Others say 'Use a gamepad'. No, why should I? Others say 'But this has been the standard for 3rd person controls for years' Well, I don't care, it is not the standard for any other TR game so why mess with it. Oh, I know, because they couldn't care less about their original, loyal fan base, they want to cash in on the new kids who hadn't even heard of the series until the movies came out and make lots more money. Pathetic.

My advice to any serious TR fan is keep away from this game, and if you do buy it complain to Eidos. I have seen masses of other posts, mainly on the Eidos forums, from people telling them how rubbish it is, perhaps they will listen.


I'm not sure who decides what category a movie fits into, but this movie is NOT a horror movie. As for the story, it was fairly interesting, but rather slow. I was especially disappointed with the ending though.

**spoiler**

Tell me why on Earth does she run over to her uncle's(?) home without at least calling the detective or the police first? She knows exactly what's going on at that point, plus she has a video tape as proof. Instead, she runs over there and starts going nuts and saying "I know everything, I have proof! You didn't expect proof, did you?!" Then she acts surprised when her uncle stands up and starts walking over to her as if he's going to harm her. Well DUH! Of course he's going to harm you idiot, you just told him you know everything and have proof to expose everything. What a dumb ending.


Spanish horrors are not bad at all, some are smart with interesting stories, but is not the case of "Second Name". It is badly directed, badly acted and boring...boring...boring, a missed chance for an interesting story.


After the overrated success of Amenabar and Balaguero, Spanish Horror Movies spread like a disease in the increasingly sad world of horror movies. The result is all in films like El segundo nombre, a TV-like production bad written, but acted and directed even worse. I didn't read the Ramsey Campbell book, but I'm sure that the author of The Doll Who Ate Its Mother didn't have much in common with this terrible production. Avoid it at any cost, unless you're searching for a quiet sleepy night in a fresh movie theater. 2/10


I have never seen such terrible performances in all my life.

Everyone in the entire film was absolute rubbish.

Not one decent actor/actress in the whole film, it was a joke.

Reminded me of drama at school...


This is one of those films that makes you want the time you spent watching it back, and then some, like the time you spent accidentally picking it out, the time you spent getting to the video store, etc.

First off, the look: It's grainy, it's low budget. Now that in itself doesn't make for a bad film. But the way it was filmed makes the action look unnatural, so that's kind of distracting.

Then, the story. 3 gals go on a gal's weekend away from guys. Of course, as EVERYONE does when going on a camping trip, they stop on the way to get earrings. When they arrive at the area in which they're going to stay, they get pulled over by Mr. Ranger Sir, who scolds them for throwing a lit cigarette out of the car at fire season, and then drives them where they're going (a remote cabin). Of course, 2 "cute guys" wander into their vicinity, and Bambi (yes, Bambi) and Aubry are immediately smitten, but apparently Bambi is smitten by anything with two legs. Mady is rather disappointed by this development because she was looking forward to a weekend of forgetting about her ex by getting sh**-faced and stoned with her gal-pals.

Oh, and I almost forgot, there's a mean old hermit that lives up that way, that's perhaps someone to not tangle with, and the area & cabin in which they're staying have a sort of "reputation".

So of course, sooner or later (unfortunately, MUCH later) some of our weekend wood-visitors begin to die, and find various booby traps (although a couple of them actually hit a little lower than that) and of course, the remaining campers are understandably upset. No cell phone reception of course (who would miss out on a chance to check their cell phone for reception in a movie anymore?). Mr. Ranger Sir keeps popping up at odd times & his behavior seems a bit odd but he has said he will get help.

There's a fantastic twist to this that you just won't want to miss too, if you're still awake. Pray that you wake up to a blank screen.

The acting in this is terrible, the production values are terrible, and the whole undertaking is just lame & I find it amazing this was even released. Avoid at all costs, 1 out of 10.


"True" story of three girls who go into the wilds of Connecticut and end up hunted by a maniac in the woods. This is the sort of film that would have played in the drive ins across America thirty years ago to mixed acclaim. Not particularly much of anything the film works with its low budget to mixed results. The film is watchable but isn't at all scary (blame how some of the attack scenes for that). Its the sort of film that you'll probably forget about once you're done with it. Odds are that you're never going to think to see this unless its handed to you by someone and told, "here watch this", which is what happened to me. If you're handed a copy give it back, the film isn't worth the effort to see it even if it is watchable.


After a fairly lengthy partially pixelated nude shower scene, we're off to the races for this "Blair Witch Project"-esquire horror film about three girlfriends venturing to a desolate cabin deep in the woods to get away from their hectic lives for a girls' weekend out and smoke pot. They meet two guys who seem friendly enough, so they drink and tell ghost stories, until late in the movie some of them get picked off.

This is a fairly slow movie, with needlessly drawn out 'suspense' scenes, the bad acting can't carry the myriad of scenes where nothing happens but mindless banter, and the movie as a whole is a dud, a deathly-boring dud at that. Nothing at all happens until the last half hour and when it did I was to numb to really care.

Eye Candy: Ashley Totin shows T&A; Evy Lutzky gets topless briefly; and Jennifer Hart shows her right tit

My Grade: D


HORRENDOUS! Avoid like the plague. I would rate this in the top 10 worst movies ever. Special effects, acting, mood, sound, etc. appear to be done by day care students...wait, I have seen programs better than this. Opens like a soft porn show with a blurred nude female doing a shower scene then goes bad from there. Good nude scenes, but that is it. Sound and light problems were persistent throughout the movie. At times I would swear I could hear the roaring of the camera motors. YIKES! I would like to see another movie on this story, but done by different people. This batch of actors and crew need more acting and movie making lessons. Voted 1 out of 10.


I'm not saying that because the production values were so low, but because it was filmed terribly. That shot of the girl washing her hair in the creek? Did we really need to sit there for an overlong shot and watch her do that for 5 minutes in the same spot? It was terrible, the lighting was just plain bad. You could barely see anything and when the characters were talking, you could barely hear what they were saying. Did I watch the whole movie? Of course not I skipped through most of it, and I don't want to hear anyone say I need to watch the whole thing first to judge it. This film was so poorly done and executed that even by independent and low budget standards it's just plain terrible. Awful movie...don't waste any time on it unless you want a good laugh, but even then it's not because of the actors "funny" lines, it's because of how painstakingly bad the production is.


Most of the French films I've seen - and enjoyed - were more talk than action, but that's okay. I found them interesting, well-photographed and with intriguing actors. (However, I did at one point wonder if Gerald Depardieu was in every French film ever made! It seemed that way.)

This movie has the same interesting visuals and had a good opening. But then it became talk, talk and more talk....which is fine for a drama but not for a murder mystery. After awhile, I almost fell asleep watching this.

Actually, the film was more like a play with almost all the scenes played out in one room. Thus, if you love plays, you should like this...but I want a little more bang for a murder story.


Green Street, as it was called in the UK, or Hooligans is a bad film. The story is full of fantastical ideas and premises that anyone who lives in England, has been to a football match or knows the first thing about football will spot immediately.

My first main gripe with Hooligans is the poor casting of the two main characters. Don't get me wrong, I like Elijah Wood and have a great respect for his work, but despite his best efforts he struggled to pull off this role. The main motivation for his character is anger at the system and anger at betrayal, however he spends much of the film placid and cheery, only displaying his pent up aggression in one brief scene towards the end of the film. This linked with his looks and physique make him a thoroughly unconvincing addition to a gang of football hooligans. At no point during the film was I convinced that a) he could handle himself in a fight against such thugs and b) the 'firm' of thugs would accept such a person into their fold.

The other main character is played by Charlie Hunnam. Charlie looks the part, and is fairly convincing as a thug. Unfortunately, being a native of Newcastle Upon Tyne in the North of England, he demonstrates the worst East London accent since Dick Van Dyke tried to go cock-en-y in Marry Poppins. Details such as this probably will not bother an American audience who will be less attuned to regional dialect in the UK, but being from the UK it was a problem I couldn't ignore and it contributed to ruining the movie for me. The supporting cast all gave convincing performances and were well cast, especially the role of Bover. The lad playing this character would have been much more suited to the main role that Charlie played. With a film like this, you have to convince the audience that your characters are plausible, unfortunately, the casting failed. Imagine if you made a film like The Godfather and had Sean Hayes (Jack) from Will and Grace playing Michael Corleone's part. You would not be convinced. The story in Hooligan is also full in implausibilities. I am no football Hooligan, but I am a fantatical football fan. I know how cliquey a group of 'regular' football supporters can be, as such it deem it impossible for a non-football fan, who is not a fan of the club in question, is not from the area in question and not even of English nationality to be embraced by a 'firm' who equate to a secret organisation in some severe cases. My final, and biggest, problem with this film, is the way it portrays football hooligans. I take objection to the film's idea that despite being very violent individuals, hooligans are excused as they live by some sort of code of ethics in their own world and should be admired for being brave and loyal to each other. This is complete rubbish. Football hooligans are complete scum. They take football, the national sport of England and use it as an excuse to terrorise, frighten and intimidate people. They only represent a tiny percentage of football fans but give the whole game and people of this country a bad reputation. They are not brave or loyal, they are cowardly and evil. If the 'GSE' in this film truly loved their club, West Ham, why would the devote their lives to being a stain on its name. Hooligans are an embarrassment to football and to English society. Football hooligans do for the reputation of football what Hitler did to the reputation of Germans. Although this film tries/intends to show the 'gritty' side of football violence. It does nothing more than promote it as some kind of excusable activity for extreme fans of the sport. It does not show the poor innocent by-standers at football matches who have their day ruined by some idiot throwing coins/lighters/glass into the crowd. It does not show the innocent home and property owners who have to put up with graffiti and broken windows. It does not show the REAL fans of football clubs who suffer indignity and embarrassment when their teams supporters are banned from travelling to away matches or abroad to European games because the thugs among them ruin it for everyone. If you want to see a good film about football violence, watch the BBC drama 'The Firm'.


This is possibly the worst film I've ever seen. The fact that it has a flimsy storyline is bad enough, that they've hooked it around the subject of football violence makes it 100 times worse.

I had severe doubts about the premise of this film even before I started watching, but went into it open minded enough even to accept the way that the writers saw fit to introduce Elijah Wood's character Matt into the hooligan scene.

But the film throws up inaccuracy after inaccuracy, to the point that by the middle of the film each one makes you cringe harder than the time before.

Let's clear up a few things: Hooligans don't tend to virtually smash up their own pub before a run-of-the-mill league game; they don't set out to kill each other; they don't ONLY wear Stone Island (and others in the crowd, hooligans or not, do). They most certainly don't, when having taken exception to a new firm member, trot off to their rival firms territory for pie and mash. And I'd love to meet the hool who would go and grass on his firm's top boy to the rival firm. (Although you can scratch what I said about setting to out kill each other if one does exist).

Don't get me wrong,I'm yet to see a film on the subject that doesn't contain some fantasy whims, but this is on a par with The Firm for cluelessness.

I found it ironical that Wood's American nemesis is morally condemned by his character for being a cocaine user, when this is part and parcel of the British hooligan scene. The film chooses not to challenge Wood's morals and instead steers clear of any of the firm using coke.

I could go on, but I think I've made my point.

As for the plot, it's highly unimaginative, and I'm sure if I hadn't spent the entire film bemoaning the points, and more, made above then I would have guessed what was going on sooner than I did. And believe me, I was well in front.

I get the distinct impression this film is aimed at men, with the hope that women will enjoy the injection of emotional issues that are raised.

If I'm right, then the makers have failed completely. It's too unrealistic to be enjoyed by anyone who knows about the scene, and I can't believe the kind of female who looks for emotive films would give a damn about any of the characters given their violent tendencies.

Are there any good points? Maybe the fight scenes are well choreographed and filmed, but I'm rarely impressed by slow-mo action, certainly not when it's a fight as the point is a ruck is rousing enough anyway.

There are some funny, if unrealistic moments. Wood's trip to school did raise a smile for me. But a few mildly funny moments hardly make up for watching two hours of complete fabricated dross.

If you're British avoid like the plague, if only not to further develop misconceptions of the scene if you're not in the know. If you're American, you may enjoy it, as it's clearly tailored to the market. But no one can deny the plot is flimsy, predictable and ultimately over the top.


Where to start? OK, don't compare this film to fight club for a start - ridiculous. If it was even a patch on fight club, the violence, blood, gore etc would be much more evident and realistic. Secondly, this film is no football factory - which is so much more real (and Danny Dyer makes Nicholas Nickelby look like an embarrassment). Fair enough, the storyline is quite decent and the fight scenes are well choreographed - with a decent ending i might add. But the film on the whole is poor, seriously poor. As people have been mentioning the accents should not spoil a film - i disagree - either a simple casting error, or a lack of effort in coaching the voices caused the film to be irritating all the way through - it was obvious from scene one some American/Geordie was playing the role. Don't get me wrong, good looking guy, who looks great with a skin head - but no not a football hooligan. I could go on forever about how ridiculous the football scene was - the 'fake steward' situation. Also, when the GSE are going to play United up north, they go on the train expecting only 3 of them - doesn't make any sense - this a real organisation of gangsters and thugs, which is portrayed in the film to be some mickey mouse cult of about 5 people. In terms of accuracy - did West Ham and Milwall not play for the last couple of years they have been in the Championship together? Hmm, ten years OK. And I'm sure 'Bother' would be able to just waltz into a Milwall firm pub. Basically, a very poor film which people will like if they have little knowledge of real football, and hooliganism. If you do actually love football and are intrigued by the underworld of hooliganism,, you will simply feel as though this film has insulted your intelligence. Ross George


First some background; I am English and have lived in London all my life. I have been to many games at 'The Den' and most other London club grounds. I am familiar with the type of person who gets into hooliganism and I know just how they act and how they speak. Have to say this is a bad, bad movie. I can tell you that Green Street is one of the most unrealistic movies I have ever seen. I spent most of the movie cringing with embarrassment. I felt I should write a mini review because I felt I needed to point out a few things.

a) People just don't talk like that in London in real life; the filmmakers took the whole slang thing too far and made it sound stupid. Unfortunately hooligan types do exist, but those you see in Green Street are more like parodies. b) The actor who plays Pete Dunham (Charlie Hunnam) unfortunately sounded about as 'English' or 'Cockney' as Osama Bin Laden. He's from up north in Newcastle and I'm just amazed any of the other actors could keep straight face acting alongside him - how are we supposed to take him seriously. Why they didn't just get someone from East London to play that part is beyond me. I could have done 'a bang up job' myself, hehe. c) Mr Frodo. I mean how can I be expected to take seriously Elijah Wood kicking the ass of people twice his size and who are genuinely nasty hooligans. He'd be dead. Simple as that. Honestly (as a Brit) it was hard to watch this film. I'm pretty sure this film will bomb here in the UK. It may do a little better in the states because the Americans just wont know (or care) how inaccurate it is.

Please my American and foreign friends, don't believe a word of this nonsense. Yes these firms do exist but it's all extremely underground and hush hush, and on a vastly smaller scale. The movie only gets a 2 from me because they actually filmed some of it in London. Usually they try to film these things in Cardiff (Wales) or something and expect us all not to notice.


I'm sure to people watching this move outside of Britian this film will be an entertaining watch, but for someone from the UK it's painful in it's errors.

Right at the start of the film Elijah Wood gets off a tube at Bank station, which has been trashed. He says to his sister, who he's meeting, "What happened here" and she replies "Oh Tottenham were in town yesterday"!!! Tottenham are in town already.. they're part of the town, they don't have to go there! And if Tottenham fans wanted to fight other fans the last place on earth they'd do it is Bank station, where there are probably more security cameras than anywhere else in the world.

There are several other similar errors but the biggest failing for me is the actor who plays the lead hooligan. He clearly decided it wasn't worth trying to speak with an East End accent and instead opted for a Dick Van Dyke style mock-ney which made my ears bleed. It was accentuated by the fact the rest of his gang all spoke in the way you'd expect West Ham fans to speak. This error made him unbelievable in the role and really spoilt the film.


Let's just say I had to suspend my disbelief less for Spiderman than I did for Hooligans. That is, to say, I have less of a problem believing Toby McGuire can stick to buildings than I do Elija Wood throwing down with toughs in Manchester. I won't get into specifics, as I don't want to write a spoiler, but the idea of grown, professional, British men getting into near death scraps every weekend is, well... funny. And this film is not. The fighting, the idea of fighting, is taken far too seriously. The gravity of the pugilism, the reverence with which the subject matter is treated becomes irritating, as it neither establishes or resolves the conflict. It seems as though the plot, with holes big enough to drive a Guiness truck through, has been slapped together with a contrived "fish out of water" theme so that viewers can gaze into Woods teary eyes as he learns how to become a man ie. hitting other young men of opposing football tastes with blunt objects and then running away as fast as he can. The characters are cartoonish, especially the Americans at Harvard. The character development and story line are telegraphed to the viewer throughout the picture. Unfortunately, the absurdity of the film doesn't reach its height until nearly the end, which by then you'll have spent nearly two hours of your life you are never getting back. Pick up "The Football Factory" or "Fight Club" instead of this corny, and disappointing dud. It doesn't waste time with empty melodrama, the tired old "Yankee in King Aurthur's Court," or weepy, parables of coming of age bullsh*t. They're just pure, dark, and clever fun; the way violence is supposed to be.


This movie was probably about as silly as The Naked Gun (which was supposed to be). Case in point:

1. In order to fake her drowning Roberts is secretly taking swimming lessons at the YWCA. After her "death" the YWCA calls her husband at work to give their condolences. HELLO how did they get his work number?

2. Before she leaves town she drops her wedding ring in the toilet. Days or even weeks later her hubby finds it in the John. Does this mean the toilet was never flushed?

3. No explanation is given on how she is paying for her mothers care in the retirement home (since she did it behind her RICH husbands back).

4. Towards the end of this tiresome film Roberts suspects her husband is in the house. Instead of running for her life she runs to the kitchen instead to see if the cans are stacked neatly.


Julia Roberts obviously makes a concerted effort to shake off her cotton wool Pretty Woman persona with this spurious spousal abuse thriller, but it's hard to imagine she'd end up putting in a performance as powerful and convincing (and oscar winning) as she did in Erin Brokovich based on the back of this rubbish. And make no bones about it, it's nothing more than a Julia Roberts vehicle, but unfortunately, her performance is not the most lacklustre thing about it.

The plot has all the markings of a late night made-for-cable, and don't be under the impression that it will offer any insight into the dark world of domestic abuse because non of the characters are sketched out enough for you to really care.

Ultimately disappointing and unsatisfying, without Roberts' name above the title, I'm sure it would have totally flopped, deservedly.


"Sleeping With the Enemy" is a predictable, 'been there before' thriller that never seems to find any inspiration no matter how desperately cast and crew try. I can't believe a bunch of my friends talked me into seeing this at the movies some sixteen years ago.

The complete lack of originality from the Ronald Bass screenplay (based upon the Nancy Price novel) does not help, nor does the stale direction of Joseph Ruben or the very average performance from Julia Roberts. The supporting cast including Patrick Bergin and Kevin Anderson do little to help.

There really isn't a lot to say. Just give it a miss.

Sunday, April 14, 1991 - Hoyts Cinema Centre Melbourne


What a powerful start to a film when Julia Roberts character is punched in the face by her abusive and anal husband played by Patrick Bergin and I felt ready to experience a powerful film on the same level as Farrah Fawcett's The Burning Bed. Well, as the summary says I was mis-lead. This film was nothing like The Burning Bed, which had power and Farrah played the part of a woman you truly felt for, and felt her pain and her need to survive. Sleeping with the Enemy drifted off after the first act into cheap thrills with Roberts faking her death to escape her husband and goes to live in Iowa. Her husband at first believes she is dead but starts to grow suspicious that she may still be alive and sets off after her. The rest of the movie is basically a cat and mouse game with Julia getting a house in this small town in Iowa and changing her identity....there is no mention of course how she got the money for this but at this point in the film I did not care all that much. She meets a guy (Mr. Nice wimpy) and falls for him and her husband does finally catch up to her but not before he re-arranges her soup cans and straightens up the kitchen. This was I assume to provide a cheap thrill to the audience. But I did not care much if she was an abused wife because the film as I have said cheated the audience. If it had stayed the course I might have felt for her and her situation. Of course the husband is killed and all is well for little ol Ms Roberts. If only the real world was anything close to this....See the Burning Bed and you understand what a film is suppose to be like on the subject of domestic abuse.


Yes there are worse movies out there. Most of them made for fun, on a shoe string budget, or as a t.v. movie of the week, but even if this was the 'movie of the week' it would rate no more than two stars. It is a poor movie about a serious subject featuring an abused woman who flees the king of the slime people in to the protective arms of the king of the wussy people. ( If this is an attempt to show that she doesn't need a man to protect her than wuss man is superfluouse to the film and ought not to be in it at all). It has no suspense, no character development, and an heroine that could be outsmarted by a rotton onion. ( I think she flushes her wedding ring on a boat with a self contained tank rather than just dropping it overboard in the ocean (where her body should be anyway) and after the husband finds her, demonstrating that she is a moron, she still makes childish assumptions that lead to almost getting her killed.) I am always amazed when I see the sort of generally high rating a movie like this gets and it makes me realize that Dr. Seuss still has a huge untapped market of people who would be challenged by his work. After I get done laughting at humanity I weep.


"Serum" starts out with credits that are quite reminiscent of the "Re-animator" movies, and it owes a lot to them. The story is very similar; a mad doctor develops a serum that he believes will alleviate pain, sickness and death, but he's apparently not a big believer in clinical trials and so winds up with a brain-eating zombie on his hands in the person of his nephew. The zombie even looks like one of those from "Re-animator," and in fact some of the make-up effects in "Serum" aren't bad. Unfortunately, the script is pretty slow and unbelievable in quite a few places, resulting in a soap opera feel for most of the first 3/4 of the movie. For some reason, the director feels compelled to tell us the time of day every few minutes by flashing it in big white letters across the screen. I can't see why this was important, other than being an attempt to provide viewers with a sense of time passing; sometimes, that wouldn't be present otherwise as the plot plods along.

There are a number of moments that just don't add up here. For instance, one victim is bludgeoned with a sledge hammer, but when we see the victim's head up close, there's no sign of that trauma. In another scene, a character runs down a fully lit hospital corridor (we can see the circles of light on the floor, in fact) with a flashlight in hand, looking for all the world like he's walking in the dark... but a moment later a second character walks down the same fully-lit corridor without one. These are just a couple of examples; moments of what look like directorial or editorial sloppiness crop up quite frequently throughout the movie.

"Serum" is better in some ways than much of what goes straight-to-video as independent horror lately. In terms of technical items  sound and photography, for example  it's got a more polished look than a lot of what lands on a DVD. On the other hand, there's still a good deal of wooden acting (particularly by one of the lead characters, the mad scientist himself!) and nonsensical moments that have nothing to do with suspension of disbelief and everything to do with writing and continuity. Maybe these are things that the people involved with making this film will eventually get more experience with, though. One of the problems with low-budget independent horror lately is that the filmmakers often set out to remake more popular movies that had bigger budgets, and that almost never works out. It didn't in the case of "Serum," anyhow.


Serum is about a crazy doctor that finds a serum that is supposed to cure all diseases through the power of the mind. Instead it creates some kind of monster that needs to eat human flesh and brains. The mad doc creates some zombies out of cadavers and has some problems. There is a very long lead into all the action with many scenes getting you acquainted with the characters. The mad doctor's nephew gets into a car accident and the mad doc tries to use his new serum on the boy. The results are not good. This is a class C film with OK acting but some troubles directing and some continuity errors. There isn't much zombie action in this one and the effects, while adequate, are nothing special. You can fast forward through the slow parts and get some enjoyment out of the action scenes. Watch out for some nudity and bad language.


Dr. K(David H Hickey)has been trying to master a formula that would end all disease and handicaps, but needs live donors to complete his work. His doctor brother Richard(Dennis O'Neill)has a son named Eddie(Derek Philips)who is accepted to medical school. Eddie has a girlfriend named Sarah(Lizabeth Cardenas)who is pre-law and plans to attend law school herself the coming fall. She and Eddie resume their relationship when Sarah calls things off with her current boyfriend who is also shagging the lady of Walt(Bill Sebastian;Eddie's best friend who recently paid for his cheating girlfriend's boob job). Eddie accidentally gets hit by a car and appears on the throes of death when Dr. K makes a suggestion to Richard..let him "recuperate" Eddie using his secret, illegal methods. When Dr. K applies his serum to Eddie horrifying results occur. Eddie's face bulges massive warts while he has also acquired a taste for human flesh. Many will die so that Eddie can feed this uncontrollable appetite he can't quench. Soon he may even pose a threat to his father and girlfriend..Eddie Monster must be stopped.

Typically awful direct-to-video horror flick suffers from a severe lack of budget, acting, and overall talent. The premise, which seems like an interesting fright-fest, fails to deliver even as a zombie flick. The gore is limited with a few munching scenes but most of the violence occurs off-camera. The use of time to move the story along can really get annoying.


Serum starts as Eddie (Derek Phillips) is delighted to learn he has been accepted into medical school to carry on the family tradition of becoming an MD like his father Richard (Dennis O'Neill) & his uncle Eddie (David H. Hickey), however his joy could be short lived as Eddie is involved in an accident & is run over by a car. Taken to the nearest hospital it doesn't look good for poor Eddie so his uncle Eddie convinces his brother Richard to let him save Eddie with the serum he has developed, a serum which will give the recipient the power to self heal any sort of wound or illness. Desperate for his boy to live Richard agrees but the procedure has unwanted side effects like turning Eddie into a brain eating zombie which is just not a good thing...

Executive produced, written & directed by Steve Franke I'll be perfectly frank myself & say Serum is awful, Serum is one of those no budget horror films which tries to rip-off other any number of other's & ends up being slightly more fun than having you fingernails pulled out with pliers. The script is terrible, it has the whole Re-Animator (1985) feel to it with mad scientists wielding huge syringes trying to eradicate death but it's so boring it's untrue, the first forty minutes is nothing more than a really dull soap opera that amounts to nothing expect to pad the running time out with Eddie arriving home after spending some time away & finding his ex-girlfriend has hooked up with someone else, arguments with his step-mom, getting drunk with his mate & generally boring the audience stiff. So, once the tedium of the first forty minutes is over & if your still watching it it takes another twenty minutes to get Eddie re-animated & then he kills a couple of people, police catch up with him & shoot him, the end. Thank god. Serum is devoid of any of the characteristic's that one would associate with a good film, the character's suck, the dialogue is poor, it takes itself far too seriously, it's dull, it's slow, it's forgettable & considering it's meant to be a horror film there's an alarming lack of blood, gore or horror. Not recommended, did I mention Serum was boring? I thought so.

Director Franke does nothing to liven this thing up, although competent there's no style here at all. The gore levels are none existent, there's a bit of splashed blood, a bitten neck, a couple of scars on a dead woman's face, a couple of scenes where a needle pierces skin & that's it. Don't expect a Re-Animator in the gore department because if you do your going to be sorely disappointed, much like I was in fact. Filmed in what looks like one house, one restaurant & a lab the film has no variety either & just looks cheap throughout. There's a couple of scenes of nudity but that's nowhere near enough to save it.

Technically the film isn't too bad, at least it looks like proper cameras were used, I can't really comment on the special effects because there aren't any but generally speaking Serum looks reasonably professional. Apparently shot in Texas, or should that read it should have literally been shot in Texas? The acting sucks although again I think they were proper actor's rather than friends or family of the director.

Serum is a terrible film, it's dull, slow, boring, has no gore & feels like a horrible soap opera for the first forty minutes. I don't understand why anyone would feel the need to watch this when they can watch Re-Animator or one of it's sequels again instead, seriously I recommend you give Serum a miss. There I've just saved you from wasting 90 minutes of your life, you can thank me later.


I don't'know... maybe it's because I'm Brazilian but all that stuff was too much. Too much love for the music, too much parties, too much contrast between the nice lives of the main characters (come on, it's not so sad) and the aspect of the city shown by the director. Everything looks too fake to me: the families, the relationships, the music, the "happiness". It simply sells a little taste of fake latinamerican culture. I must be honest: it did seduce me a little, but who would not be seduced by that fake lives made of nice music, sex and parties? I'm not that stupid: what kind of world is this one in which people do not suffer of diarrhea, profound sadness and STDs? I liked the scene with Caridad's mother phone call and the discussion about the contract with all the musicians and the Spanish people.


"Triumph of Love" is proof that not every Comédie-Française author who uses cross-dressing disguised courtship like Shakespeare is worth seeing.

Or maybe something was lost in the translation of this adaptation of Marivaux, a Commedia Dell Arte-inspired playwright of whom Brittannica says: "His nuanced feeling and clever wordplay became known as marivaudage."

While Mira Sorvino has fun dangling three mixed-up romances, her pants role wasn't even up to Cherubino in "Marriage of Figaro."

The herky-jerky editing is annoying and just seems to indicate that a lot of takes were needed for each long speech.

Best was Fiona Shaw as the fooled spinster, as well as the costumes.

The glimpses of audience we see and the closing curtain call to wink that this is all artifice doesn't really help.

(originally written 5/29/2002)


Let me be clear. I've used IMDb for years. But only today I went through the trouble of registering on the site, just so I could give this movie the lowest possible rating. I've seen hundreds of films, some of them bad, a few awful. Never, though, have i seen such a contrast of pretense and incompetence, of high intentions and failure.

Mira Sorvino is horribly cast as the princess, but entirely unbelievable as Phocion, a young boy. Fiona Shaw is always an entertaining character, but the dialogue in the film is much worse, even, than in the insipid French play that is the source (Marivaux never reached Hollywood until now, and we should keep it that way).

To illustrate, for example, that Leontine is a brilliant, passionate philosopher and scientist, she is shown frantically pouring chemicals from beaker to beaker, shouting out names of famous scientists. And the romance between Agis and the princess is played even sillier. For this, the pair should receive a joint 'Clair Danes' award, which in a just world would be awarded for gratuitously anachronistic and uninspired re-interpretation of interesting teens from literature as brats of the 1990's (see Miss Danes in Les Miserables).

Aside from the atrocious plot and dialogue, there are some attempts to introduce artistic tropes into the filming. For example, there are moments when a handful of spectators are faded in and out of view of the action, sitting in chairs, watching the principal characters. The Director wants us to realize she's adapted a play. I get it. But it doesn't happen at all until far into the film. At that point, seeing a crowd of people sitting in chairs for a moment, then disappearing, is creepy and distracting. They're like some sort of un-scary zombie crowd, appearing through the mists, filling us with dread. When you see the horrible frolic and song that ends this movie, you'll want to rouse your own crowd of zombies and kill them all for the grave injustise of poisoning your mind for 112 minutes.

-Matthew McGuire


Yikes. This is pretty bad. The play isn't great to begin with, and the decision to transfer it to film does it no favours - especially as Peploe doesn't decide how she wants to treat the material's theatrical origins (we get occasional glances of an observing theatre audience etc.) and has decided to go with a jumpy editing style that is intended to keep reminding you that you're watching a film, whereas in fact it only serves to remind you that you are watching a very poor film by a director who is overwhelmed by her material. Mira Sorvino's central performance is breath-takingly poor: stage-y and plummy, it's as if she's playing the part via Helena Bonham-Carter's Merchant Ivory oeuvre. Only Fiona Shaw delivers a performance of note - and it may be that her theatrical pedigree means that she is best able to handle the material - but it's hard to watch a film for one performance alone, even if that performance is as light, truthful and entire as Shaw's. Ben Kingsley turns in an average and disengaged turn, and Diana Rigg's daughter, Rachel Stirling plays her supporting role as just that. Sadly, none of Bertolucci's magic has rubbed off on his wife if this film is to be the evidence.


I borrowed this movie from library think it might be delightful. How wrong am I!

It is such a bad movie that I have to write something about it. Mira Sorvino is SO bad in the movie, it is very painful to watch the scene with her. She is a pretty girl, but in this movie, She is not seductive at all, but I will have to witness her awkward attempt to seduce almost all the other major characters. It is so ridiculous.

And the dialog of the film is so pretentious, and lack the humorous fact that make then acceptable.

Totally failure.


"The Triumph of Love" doesn't triumph over anything. It is a plodding, ponderous, 4 hours of torture. Actually it's a little less than 2 hours long, it just seemed much longer. It pains me to even think about the amateurish performances of such fine actors as Ben Kingsley and Fiona Shaw. The supporting players are not quite as awful. Maybe they were trying to be so over the top, so as to be clownish, but, if so, I didn't see it that way. Mira Sorvino doesn't make an impression one way or the other. She(he)'s just there. My guess is, the play of the same name, written by Marivaux some 270 or so years ago, is much better. It couldn't be any worse. Clare Peploe, the writer and director of this movie, was inspired by a recent production of the play. I don't know what she was thinking when she created this bomb.

Maybe it all got lost in the translation.


I gave this movie a rating of 1 (Awful). The only reason that it should even get a 1 instead of a big -0- is Ben Kingsley, who always shines not matter what terrible material is thrown his way.

Mira Sorvino is so out of her element here that as a viewer one simply can't get over the fact that she is even in such a piece.

Stupid, stupid story and horrible production. Do NOT waste your video rental $.


Gods, I haven't watched a movie this awful in a long while. Maybe not since 'The New Guy' or various Freddie Prinze Jr. movies. Yes, it is that astoundingly awful. Mira Sorvino's blank and wooden acting surely must've been inspired by Freddie. The movie staging was awkward (like a play, rather, and that feeling of confinement does NOT work well on film). The actors had no idea what they were doing, especially Sorvino. Her accent was awful and her sex appeal non-existent here so it was painful to see her 'seducing' other characters and they 'falling' for it. And what was with the occaisional shots of a live audience in lawn chairs? Nonsensical! I had to turn the dvd player off, it would have been self-inflicted pain to finish this film.


I rented this movie, thinking it looked like a wonderfully delightful historical piece. What I got was a piece of pure garbage. This movie was confusing in most spots, choppy in almost every spot and dreadful in all spots. Mira Sorvino's portrayal of a queen playing a young male scholar was depressing at best. Ben Kingsley should have been stripped of his knighthood for even considering this film as one of his projects. Fiona Shaw should definitely stick to playing Petunia Dursley; at least the Harry Potter movies are more entertaining than this thing they call a play within a movie.

The cinematography looks like some college kid took a class in Cinematography 101 and failed miserably. Almost every scene in the movie is chopped up for some sort of effect; the end result of course being the cheesiest bit of editing I've ever seen. Jay Rodan was almost good as Agis; too bad he had such a bad script to work with. Rachael Stirling gives her best effort as the almost gullible lady in waiting. In the end, I really wish Blockbuster Video gave refunds. I'm so glad I didn't spend 10 bucks watching this fiasco in the theater. If they've been performing this Marivaux play since the 18th century, it makes me wonder how many people over the ages have had their best naps during this work. If I had been there, they wouldn't have hear the play over the snoring. Thank goodness for the modern convenience of DVD players; you can skip past the boring or awful scenes. Guess that means I only watched the beginning and the end!


I really wanted to like this movie a lot more than I did. That's because I love wacky foreign comedies--particularly the strange ones that catch you completely by surprise. However, although this one frequently caught me by surprise, these were almost never pleasant surprises. It reminded me of South Park in that nearly EVERY social norm was violated until the only ones left to broach were too sick to be funny. For example, after exploring adultery, drug abuse (of nearly every sort--ranging from pot, heroin, speed to glue sniffing), prostitution, S&M, suicide, murder, etc., the movie got to the hilarious(?) topic of pedophilia. Mom encouraged her one son (who looked about 12 years-old) to sleep with neighboring men. In fact, at one point in the movie she gives this boy to the dentist in lieu of payment for dental work! Funny?! You've got to be kidding. This movie just goes too far and delves into the "black hole of comedy". What should they make fun of next, cancer or rectal tumors?


Tatie Danielle is all about a ghastly old hag who torments her loving and oblivious family out of sheer spite. There's a bit of subtext that might be about France's colonial past but it's mostly just Danielle doing the sorts of things (like deliberately abandoning a small child in a park) that would soon have a man picking up his teeth with broken fingers. Sadly, that doesn't happen here. It looks good and the acting is fine and there's nothing really wrong with the concept but it's just so SMUG. God, does this movie love itself. Pity it isn't nearly as clever or as funny as it thinks it is. The only impetus in the show - sorry, movie - comes from Danielle getting nastier and nastier, and the only surprise comes from watching the increasingly improbable ways she does this. That's right: just like in a sitcom, which is what this is, with the added 'bonus' of delusions of grandeur and a 110-minute running time.


This agonizing comedy-drama got surprisingly sterling reviews upon its release in 1979. I remember opening the movie-section of the L.A. Times and looking at a 2-page advertisement for "Chapter Two" filled with glowing captions like: "Better than 'The Goodbye Girl'!" and "Neil Simon does it again!" What does Neil Simon do? He takes an autobiographical situation (remarrying too soon after the death of a beloved spouse) and makes it rusty, unpleasant and--worst of all--unfunny. James Caan plays Neil--er..that is, George--a writer who can't seem to get back into life after losing his wife; enter spirited Marsha Mason (real-life Mrs. Simon...soon to be ex-Mrs. Simon) who attempts to love George despite his moods and general melancholy. Mason is very appealing here and might've saved the day were it not for Caan's indifference (not to mention a sub-plot concerning painfully-thin, blonde Valerie Harper which brings the proceedings to a screeching halt). I liked Mason's outburst at the end ("I am wonderful! I am NUTS about me!"), but I saw no happy ending for these two people...and time proved me right. ** from ****


Thanks to a dull, dimensionless screenplay by Neil Simon, and lackluster direction from Robert Moore, Chapter Two becomes a shrill showcase for Marsha Mason who received her third of four Oscar nods for Chapter Two giving the same performance here that she gave in Cinnderella Liberty(73), The Goodbye Girl(77), Audrey Rose(78) and Only When I Laugh(81);only this time she doesn't have a child to drag around. Chapter Two is the third and last feature film for Moore having previously directed Neil Simon's The Cheap Detective(78) and Murder By Death(76). Caan is miscast, the characters are mono-dimensional, the dialog is overly analytical, and there's virtually no establishing detail. The first half is a less-than-captivating, meet cute, coy romance between a blinkered Caan and a chipper Mason, and the dreary second half makes you long for the first half. The NYC locations as well as Joe Bologna, and a painfully thin Valerie Harper are irrelevant, but at least they provide some welcome distraction. And last and least, there's an awful song played during the credits.


What a piece of stupid tripe.

I won't even waste time evaluating any of the points of this show. It's not worth the time. The one comment I will make is - why get such a DUMB, inarticulate doofus to be the star?!?

There aren't many more dismal testimonials to the deteriorating mental condition of the networks than the fact that FOX has stated it will NOT bring back John Doe (a decent series) but WILL bring back brain-dead drivel like Joe Millionaire for yet another round of killing the brain cells of the american public.

FOX has lost it, IMHO.


You loose 100 IQ points just for tuning in. This show has to be awful, I refuse to tune in from just what I've seen in commercials. Where did they dig this guy up at anyway? Also, what do they intend to do next season? The secret is out. Everyone already knows the set up? Are they going to look for people who has been living under a rock to star in next season? Where are they going to dig up more stupid women? No wonder America is a big joke to outsider's,look what you are watching!!


Final Score...who cares - it's a reality show. It has no love for it's audience, it panders to lazy TV viewers, puts nothing in and gets nothing out.

"Joe Millionaire", the most blatantly phony reality show of them all, is a television disaster of epic proportions. It's a watershed, rock bottom moment, not only for Fox, but for the American viewing public who actually watch, like and talked about this crap the next day. You people ought to be ashamed of yourselves. Because as much as Fox promotes this junk it won't make any money unless it's watch by people (and boy was it, the finale got nearly Super Bowl numbers!?). It doesn't bother you people that there are many quality shows written, directed, acted and generally have effort put into them that are being cancelled while you sit back and lap up this effortless, cold game show?

I used to be a staunch supporter of Fox. It's those of us like me who like and seek out quality TV that helped build Fox back in the days of Married...with Children and The Simpsons. Conveniently enough, now neither of those shows would make it 6 weeks with the current management. The Gail Berman "reign of terror" as it's often called. The network has waged war on scripted TV AND, strangely enough, it's fans. The very people who helped build them in the beginning. Now, not only do we have to fight for good shows, but we have to fight against their own network. It boggles the mind. Nothing Fox, has done in the past 3 years makes any sense. From canceling hits like "Titus", "Futurama" and "John Doe" (NBC can renew "Boomtown", but Fox can't lift it's pitiful head to give the only decent show they had this season another shot?). And the reason they can do all this: the success of junk like "Joe Millionaire". They can now say "We don't need you TV fans, we have reality shows". They apparently seem to have no idea that the big audience the draw with this junk is fickle and WILL abandon them the second the next fad comes along. To alienate their base like this will eventually kill the network the way it has set back ABC.

The show itself is a joke. Here we have a premise, in the now classic Fox gimmick, that promises us something different and edgy, but then delivers something not in any way different from "The Bachelor" or anything on the big 3. Fox has gone mainstream. The finale and "twist" (quote/unquote) showed they have no ideas up their sleeve. Now we know that all these shows, no matter how different they look, will all end up the same cornball, fairy tale ending. We got to see a bunch of lame aspiring actors that the network picked out of millions of head-shots to fit their demographics parade around like high school bimbos pretending they liked this Evan Marriott because...well because it was a competition and that's what you're supposed to do. Marriott himself is like a hideously disfigured Chro-magnum man who struggles to put together the simplest sentences. But, how can the women (all average to ugly looking by the way - an important minus is a guilty pleasure show like this) not fall for "Joe" with such charming lines like "Look, you're not stupid".

I used to think that people who watched these reality/dating/game shows were just to lazy to change the channel, but after "Joe Millionaire" I think they must be genuinely mentally deficient. Come on people, have a little more pride in yourselves. Demand a little bit more from your entertainment then THIS.

Boycott FOX.


I watched this movie just a little while ago and I found that this movie was terrible! It moved very slowly and was hardly entertaining!

Sorry for all those that liked it.... this is only my opinion!


A film about the Harlem Renaissance and one author in particular. It contrasts it with a modern day story about a young, gay, black artist.

If that sounds vague it's because the movie itself is. It's well-directed, fairly well-written and (for the most part) well-acted. Also the scenes in the past are shot in moody black & white. Also this is one of the few film dealing with gay men that does NOT shy away from sex scenes (not that explicit and no frontal). Still, I mostly hated this.

The film meanders all over the place, is full of unlikable characters (including the main protagonist) and (this is the killer) moves at a snails pace. Three times I considered leaving the theatre because I was so utterly bored. But the director WAS there so I stayed.

His talk afterwords shows this was a labor of love and took 6 years to complete. I really wish I could like this more (there are VERY few films dealing honestly with gay blacks) but I can't. Unless you're very interested in the Harlem Renaissance there's no reason to see this.


Uh oh! Another gay film. This time it's showing the black side. Bet your last dollar it's gonna have an unhappy ending! But WHY? With only less than a half dozen exceptions, ALL gay films have to end in death or an "addio" finale. It's like all the European Film Noir releases in the 40's, 50's, 60's, and 70's. The lead...male or female must die or ride off alone into oblivion. Why in God's name must writers, directors, and producers have the audience leave the theatre feeling depressed? After all, it's supposed to be gay...not glum. Maybe the category should be changed to a 'glum' film. A large percentage of gay relationships DO last and the couples DO ride off together into the sunset! No matter who writes or produces, he only shows the down side of gay life and gives the incorrect impression of gay lifestyle. This movie just proves my point. If you rent the DVD, take an antidepressant, for here comes another 'gay' film! This is WRONG!


Another of many nearly forgotten movies cranked out by Poverty Row in the 1930's, resurrected by the magic of DVD.

Starring stock Universal player Lionel Atwill (often a supporting actor in numerous Frankenstein movies) as a pair of twins involved in a murder racket. One kills the victims (stockbrokers involved in a scam) and asks witnesses for the exact time, while the other is deaf and is proved "innocent" because he could not have spoken to witnesses.

Of course, where it falls apart is if it was a congenital deafness, wouldn't they both be deaf? Oh, well.

Atwill does a pretty good job here, faking being deaf and mute. Unfortunately, no one else here can really act worth a darn.


This one is a real bomb. We are supposed to believe that Merle Oberon is the sequestered daughter of an ambitious politician who must prove to the Tom DeLay of the 1930s that he is worth supporting as a presidential candidate. Poor Merle can't go anywhere, but is surrounded by politicians and their quacking, quaking wives and supported only by kindly uncle Harry Davenport. She joins her two maids on a blind date and Gary Cooper happens to show up. Some shots of rodeo might have enlivened things, a la "Misfits," but no such luck with this one. Gary later breaks in to a formal dinner, at which Merle is presiding, and, though invited to sit down and join the group, reads them a lecture on their snobbery. Where did this diffident cowboy's sudden eloquence come from? The most excruciating scene in the film is a phantom party that Gary holds in his unfinished house for his absent wife, Merle. Will it never end? One to avoid.


The subject is certainly compelling: a group of people take their love of gaming one step further by creating a fake medieval world full of warriors, kings, princes and castles. Wargaming is an interesting phenomena that delves into our collective need to "escape" from reality and the sometimes mundaneness of our existence -- something almost everyone can relate to. The characters are the predictable mix of Lord of the Rings nerds and Star Trek enthusiasts. That's enough to get most people to watch. However, very quickly the film turns into an insider's view of wargaming with an almost stereotypical thumbing of the nose to viewers who "don't get it". The filmmakers seem to take the subject of wargaming, and this particular one, waaaaay too seriously rather than once in awhile recognizing the humor and fun in making a film about adults drssing up in medieval gear and pounding each other with foam swords. It's pretty hard for anyone who doesn't sit on their computer for 7-10 hours a day playing games or desiging the latest star destroyer to understand what the characters are talking about and why we should even care. However, the filmmakers themselves seem not to care choosing to focus solely on the subject of the game itself rather than building a strong narrative with a clear story that anyone can understand. Moreover, the characters themselves are not that compelling and you quickly become bored of them: a big no-no when you're trying to keep people's attention for 90 minutes.


"Everything a great documentary could be"?? Yeah, if one is deaf, dumb, and blind. Everything but meaning, wit, visual style, and interesting subject matter. Aside from that. . .

Seriously, volken. This is a movie that is completely inauthentic. An adventure doc with no adventure, a war doc with no feeling for war, a campy send-up with no trace of wit. It means nothing, feels like nothing, and carries the implicit message that absolutely nothing matters. No wonder it has so many IMDb fans! Of course, going in you know a movie starring the great Skip Lipman will have no culture, no intelligence, no wit (other than a corrosive adolescent jokiness), and no recognizable human emotion  just adrenaline. "Darkon" isn't a movie -- it's a panic attack! Avoid. There too many real documentaries and too little time in life to waste it on toilet build-up such as "Darkon".


As a "lapsed Catholic" who had 11 years of Catholic school, but hasn't been to Mass in 35 years except for weddings and funerals, I thought I'd get a kick out of this. And I did . . . for the first two-thirds of the movie. It was all the standard stuff -- strict parochial school teachings, repressed sexuality, etc. But then, suddenly, the movie turned mean. REALLY mean. Now mind you, I saw this before the pedophilia scandals hit . . . and maybe I wouldn't have been quite so offended at such nasty, hateful digs at the Catholic Church if I'd known about those abominations (such a Catholic term!) and coverups.

It's been a few years since I rented the video, and I won't go back to rent it again with a new perspective. It just left such a dirty, nasty, ugly taste in my mouth . . . I wonder what experience all the actors had with the Church, because either they *really* hate it, or they whored themselves for the paycheck. It's an incredibly anti-Catholic movie, offensive to anyone who has a glimmer of a gleam of respect for Catholic education. Which I still do because there were no better teachers back in the '50s. Whatever else those nuns did, they forced me to learn how to read and write the English language. They made us memorize. (How many kids today can do simple arithmetic in their heads?) Truth is, there's nothing more essential for success in America. Can ya read? Can ya add/subtract/multiply/divide? Great. You can get any advanced degree you want. And the discipline of Catholic education will stand you in good stead, not just as you continue your studies, but also for the rest of your life, no matter what you think of the Catholic "mythology" we all had to learn.

Such a great cast, such a lousy, rotten script. I really feel bad (and no, it's not "badly" -- trust me, the nuns taught me better) for the writer and director.

I thought I had mixed emotions about Catholic school. But the participants in this project must've been those bad (ie.e, stupid) kids who sat in the back of the room, if they were willingly involved in making this movie.


This is a film that takes some digesting. On the one hand, we are offered a tough outward shell, a story that does not only derive the Catholic Church, but does so foolishly, and uninformed. On an inner layer, we are offered a story of orthodoxy over orthopraxis, and what happens when people follow blindly a faith that they must not understand.

At first glance, it appeared this was supposed to be a comedy. If so, then Mr. Durang needs to open a dictionary, because he clearly does not know the meaning of the word. The jokes are pale; the humor is awkward and poorly delivered. In particular, Ms. Keaton's performance is flighty and over the top, well below the quality of her Annie Hall and Sleeper days. Jennifer Tilly is again the model of stridence, with her hi-pitched voice and whining style. All of this could be forgiven if it weren't for the last 20 minutes of this movie, that evidently was a controversial play made in 1981.

***Careful, spoilers ahead***

It all starts with the appearance of four former students of Sister Mary Ignatius (Ignatius, by the way, is a male name, and a nun would not adopt it after her vows under any circumstance simply due to that fact, just to show you how much tireless research went into the project to begin with.) When they all admit that they don't live up to the church's teachings, the sister proceeds to become irrational and abuse them in a manner the audience is to believe she did way back when in the corny, all-too-cliché sepia-tone flashbacks. When one of them admits to having two abortions, the nun becomes even more abusive, until the pupil pulls out a gun. After wrestling it away from her, the nun kills the pupil, presumably in self-defense. She then goes on a screaming rampage, killing a gay former student because of his sins. The last shot is of the dead female pupil lying in a Christ-like pose as a shadow of a cross hangs over her. Can you say `heavy handed?' I knew you could!

I know there have been abusive nuns in the past, and I know many people have been emotionally harmed as a result, but this imagery is fed down our throats in almost every other shot in this train wreck of a movie. I have heard from the writer and the director that this is a film about hysteria and why one should not follow the orthodoxy so religiously, no pun intended. This explanation is hard to swallow, though, simply because we are never given an authoritative viewpoint that is not biased against the catholic faith in one way or another. This film is simply anti-Catholic tripe, which in the name of fairness and equality, is mean spirited and hateful.

This is a film I would recommend for a catholic, namely to awaken him or her to the realities of what cynicism and ignorance they face today. If it were `Rabbi Ray explains it all' or `Imam Muhammad explains it all', there would be rioting in the streets and Showtime would lose all of its subscription. But, sadly, because this is a film that strikes out against what is perceived to be the majority, it is accepted and even applauded by those who share the same spiteful point of view.

I certainly hope every member of that cast was a practicing catholic, so it wasn't just ignorance that brought them to make this film.

I give it 1.5 stars out of 5, not because of its offensive nature, but because it was poorly written, poorly directed and just a bad movie in general. Don't even waste your time.


I am a Catholic taught in parochial elementary schools by nuns, taught by Jesuit priests in high school & college. I am still a practicing Catholic but would not be considered a "good Catholic" in the church's eyes because I don't believe certain things or act certain ways just because the church tells me to.

So back to the movie...its bad because two people are killed by this nun who is supposed to be a satire as the embodiment of a female religious figurehead. There is no comedy in that and the satire is not done well by the over acting of Diane Keaton. I never saw the play but if it was very different from this movies then it may be good.

At first I thought the gun might be a fake and the first shooting all a plan by the female lead of the four former students as an attempt to demonstrate Sister Mary's emotional and intellectual bigotry of faith. But it turns out the bullets were real and the story has tragedy...the tragedy of loss of life (besides the two former students...the lives of the aborted babies, the life of the student's mom), the tragedy of dogmatic authority over love of people, the tragedy of organized religion replacing true faith in God. This is what is wrong with today's Islam, and yesterday's Judaism and Christianity.


A less-than-subtle poke at the beliefs and teachings of the Catholic Church is given a darker shade of death near the end of the show. Throughout the show, dark humour plays a medium through which several commonly heard rhetoric questions are asked, especially "If God is so good, why does he allow evil to exist in the world?"

Diane Keaton is excellent in her role as an exaggerated version (though some might disagree) of they stereotyped religious teacher who spouts the "company line" and condemns half the world to burn in Hell. To celebrate her school's 25th anniversary, she invites her first students to return and perform their Christmas pageant.

However, when the quartet "update" their play to parody Sister Mary's "fallacious" teachings, the nun is pushed over the edge, sending the story spiralling into a chain of unhappy events. The ending finally leaves the audience with a sick feeling in their hearts.

Not recommended. Go watch the play instead.


I have always said that some plays by their very nature just can't be translated to film, and this one is a prime example.

As a play, this is a very funny farcical satire of the Catholic church, with a razor wit and a central character who is so shockingly unreal we have to root for her even when she starts murdering her parishioners (one of whom made the fatal mistake of admitting he had not sinned since his last confession, so she feels she is sending him straight to heaven).

That's just one example of how far outside of reality the play goes, and in the make believe world of the theater, it works. However, that kind of heightened reality rarely works on film, and it certainly doesn't here.

Director Marshall Brickman has assembled a fine cast who do great work, but by presenting all this absurdity in a realistic fashion the comedy becomes tragedy and you are left with an empty feeling in the pit of your stomach.

Seek out a production of the stage play instead, you won't be disappointed.


Christopher Durang must have been taught by a memorably awful nun, because he just can't let go of the concept. The play, "Sister Mary Ignatius Explains It All For You," was presented -- at least in Hollywood -- in precisely the same tone as Diane Keaton's lecture scenes here. Sister Mary was an exaggeration, a lampoon, a bitter satire of a serenely confident, doctrinaire and highly judgmental nun -- and as played by Lynn Redgrave, she was hilarious. But the movie insists that we take this exaggeration absolutely seriously -- while, as mentioned, maintaining the same tone in the "explains it all" scenes. The two approaches clash headlong and in the last twenty minutes, the movie goes off the track, plunges into the gorge, and explodes. There are no survivors. It could have worked, if the tone of the scenes with the four former students, and their encounter with Sister Mary, been pitched the same as the Sister Mary scenes. Or if the Sister Mary scenes been presented more realistically. This way simply doesn't work at all.


Broad enough for you? Wait till you see this heavy handed

adaption of a little collegiate one act. What is shocking and wild in

college rarely holds up over time, and this is proof. To take on the

Catholic Church with broadside humor just isn't shocking or

interesting or funny, it's kind of boring. The performers are all

game, giving all they've got, but it's basically a play that doesn't

open up to film well. Not a lot of fun.


I would have given it a one instead of a two, but I suppose it COULD have been worse. I guess the acting isn't all that bad, but the plot lacks anything even remotely close to interesting. It is a terrible movie!! TERRIBLE! Complete waste of time! I strongly suggest you do not watch this movie.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Michael Rooker is a decent actor, but he has no business being the lead except in a low budget movie. He really does not have much charisma. Ryo Ishibashi has a lot more screen presence, and sadly he is not really the main character. Most of the screen time goes to the brick-faced Rooker.

Danielle Harris (from the Halloween 4 and 5 movies) plays his daughter, and she is cute and entertaining but she is written as not being too smart and one of her dumb mistakes gets one of the main characters killed. Comedians Fred Willard, Bobcat Goldthwait, and Stephen Furst are here in interesting roles. Just watching what happens to these characters is priceless.

Vincent Schiavelli plays the Consigliare to the local Mafia Godfather, and it is hard to tell whether or not he is working the movie as a comedy. Tim Thomerson is also in this movie. He seems to be in every extremely low budget direct-to-video action movie. Thomerson is also in some low-budget comedies. Seeing so many comedians and comic actors in this film made it feel like a spoof. Is it a parody of a Yakuza movie? It is hard to tell at some points. There is certainly very little Yakuza action.

The supporting cast of Thugs and Goons is menacing and well cast. Some of these kinds of movies have Thugs that look like they work at the local Comic Book Store or as stock boys at Piggly-Wiggly. Overall this movie is very uneven. At some points it seems like a comedy or a parody. Then at other points it works as a good action movie. Then it sputters to an end. Without the contributions of Danielle Harris and Ryo Ishibashi this movie would rate a Zero in my humble opinion.


Typical formula action film: a good cop gets entangled in a mess of crooked cops and Japanese gangsters.

The okay result has decent performances, a few fleeting snicker-inducing moments, and some fair action sequences--plus a chance to check out the gorgeous Danielle Harris--who makes the most of her perpetual typecasting as a rebellious teen daughter.

** out of ****.


Strictly a routine, by-the-numbers western (directed by genre-mainstay Andrew V. McLaglen, so is that any wonder?). Army colonel Brian Keith spars with smarmy bandit Dean Martin, who has just kidnapped the colonel's wife (Honor Blackman, who never found her niche after playing Pussy Galore in "Goldfinger"). Fist-fights, shoot-outs, stagecoach robberies and Denver Pyle in a supporting role...in other words, absolutely nothing new or original. Talking in a low monotone throughout, Keith gets to dally with a prostitute (something of a shock after his run on TV's "Family Affair"), but otherwise this low-rent material wastes Keith's amiable talents. It's also bad news for Dino, who doesn't seem to notice or care. Hack direction, poor writing and several unfunny attempts at lowball humor. * from ****


A reporter, Craig Milford, who works for The James Keller Public Telecommunication Center, has an interview with a German professor of a Floridian university, who made an unknown creature based upon some substance of meteor(s). But then a man named Anderson, who is trying to control the whole planet with the creature, and his man kill the professor and his assistants and plunder the creature. So Craig and his new female psychic partner, Joanna Fitzgerald, who can communicate not only with human being but also with alien friend(s) of the creature, begin to find the creature and try to send it to an alien spaceship... This film has some great casts and staffs. For instance, it has the actor, David Warbeck of THE BEYOND, the actress, Laura Trotter of NIGHTMARE CITY, the special visual effects creator, Sergio Stivaletti of Dario Argento's masterpieces, and the director (and also the story- writer), Alberto De Martino of THE MAN WITH ICY EYES and THE KILLER IS ON THE PHONE. And these talented people make an incredibly bad film, named, nothing but this MIAMI GOLEM which is essentially a confusedly combined film of CLOSE ENCOUNTERS OF THE THIRD KIND with E.T.THE EXTRA-TERRESTRIAL. And this not-only-confused-but-also-crammed film has something worth; genetic engineering with psychical research. Consequently the film has at least one scientific and/or technical flaw; genetic engineering and psychical research are never compatible. (Strangely enough, regarding this strangely childish combination of genetic engineering and psychical research, the leading character, Craig, himself says THERE MUST BE A BETTER EXPLANATION to the short-haired psychic, Joanna. But, after all, the whole story of the film doesn't and can't present any kind of BETTER EXPLANATION.) In addition, this film has something more laughable; its problematic music. What the composer, who is credited as Robert Marry, provides is nothing but the strangely insistent BEVERLY-HILLS-COP-tasted music. I don't want to say this Italianised theme of BEVERLY HILLS COP per se is particularly bad music, but I have to say it seems to be manifestly clear the music does not have the fitness for this film per se at all. Indeed just who can think BEVERLY HILLS COP has the compatibility with genetic engineering and/or psychical research?


The basic premise of "Miami Golem" most definitely deserves a spot in the top, say, fifty of most demented cinematic plots ever scripted down! I know top 50 doesn't sound too impressive, but I've seen a lot of really weird films with lunatic plots. I was prepared from something convoluted, because the film was directed and co-written by Alberto De Martino, who was one of Italy's most ambitious and creative but sadly underrated film makers. De Martino steals multiple ideas from successful blockbusters, like most Italian directors did around that time, but he always adds a lot of stuff to make it even more complex, confusing and overwhelming. Not all of De Martino's films are worthwhile, but some of them are extremely underrated, like "A Special Magnum for Tony Saitta", "Holocaust 2000" and "Formula for a Murder". The concept of "Miami Golem" contains elements from numerous great Sci-Fi and adventure flicks (like "Alien", "Starman" , "Close encounters of the Third Kind", "ET", ) but I wouldn't exactly call it a rip-off. The only thing that is really shamelessly stolen from another film is the opening synthesizer theme song that sounds almost identical to Harold Faltermeyer's Axel F. from "Beverly Hills Cop". The rest of the film is an amusing hodgepodge of fantasy, Sci-Fi, action, horror and superhero-movie gimmicks. It certainly doesn't always make sense (most of the time it doesn't, actually) but "Miami Golem" is undeniably an imaginative and multifaceted film that kept my mate and I fascinated from start to finish.

The plot is extremely difficult to briefly summarize but I'll try anyway. Sceptical journalist Craig Milford is reporting the story of a German scientist who allegedly discovered extraterrestrial DNA inside a crashed meteorite and managed to clone it. The DNA cell belongs to an evil alien force that already exterminated another interstellar race in the past and it will unquestionably destroy the whole of mankind as soon as it grows large enough in size. If this isn't problematic enough already, the rich Mr. Anderson ordered to steal the slowly growing evil fetus because he thinks that he can manipulate it and use it to obtain world domination. With the help of some good aliens in an earthly disguise, Craig Milford has the difficult task of safeguarding the planet from the evil fetus. Okay, I know all this sounds grotesque and silly, but I assure that "Miami Golem" is in fact a light-headed and easy digestible flick. The first half of the film may come across as overly hectic and confusing, because Alberto De Martino attempts to keep the plot secret through the use of preposterous red herrings. There are subliminal ghostly appearances, supportive characters behaving exaggeratedly mysterious for no real reason and at a certain point there are even speculations about the lost continent of Atlantis. This is all misleading padding material, however, and as soon as the set-up is more or less clear "Miami Golem" turns into an ordinary early 80's popcorn action movie with bloody massacres, flamboyant chase sequences (in the Florida Everglades!), explosions, gratuitous sleaze and nasty little fetus-monsters in jars.

Now, I really don't want to raise the impression that "Miami Golem" is a lost and undeservedly obscure gem of Italian exploitation cinema. Make no mistake, this is a pretty bad movie! The events only become endurable if you accept the stupidity and incoherence of the plot and if you don't succeed in that, well than this is just a non-stop spitfire of negative aspects. The acting performances are painfully awful. Particularly B-movie veteran John Ireland, as the archetypal James Bond villainous character, doesn't seem the least interested in the script. You can tell from his grimaces and by the way he delivers his lines that he also thinks the whole production is retarded and simply signed up for the paycheck. Laura Trotter is probably the least sexy female lust-object ever, and the person who drew the marvelously chaotic VHS cover must have felt exactly the same way, because the ravishing girl on the cover does not appear anywhere in the movie. What an embarrassment this must be for Mrs. Trotter. Still, her completely gratuitous nudity sequences compensate for this, as she's quite hot from the neck down. And, finally, there's the unforgettable scene where David Warbeck takes down a helicopter from a moving school bus with a regular pistol! I don't think even John Rambo can do this, while he's a beefcake Vietnam veteran and Warbeck's character is a simple TV-reporter.


This budget-starved Italian action/sci-fi hybrid features David Warbeck as a Miami reporter who is chosen by the ghosts of the people of Atlantis (!) to stop an evil businessman (Academy Award nominee John Ireland) from using a telepathic fetus grown using spores from an asteroid to rule the world. You got all that? Despite such a loopy plot, this is actually quite a bore and the RAIDERS OF ATLANTIS sneers at it with contempt. Honestly, the most (intentionally) creative thing about this flick is the slight reworking of Herbie Hancock's BEVERLY HILLS COP theme for the opening titles. The most unintentionally creative bit involves a scene in a lab that is inexplicably shown twice back-to-back. Perhaps director Alberto De Martino wanted to get all avant garde on us in the twilight of his career? I was going to declare this Ireland's worst film on his resume but then I saw SATAN'S CHEERLEADERS was listed on there. I would also like to safely declare that I am probably the only person in the history of the world to do a double feature of this and Hitchcock's VERTIGO.


All I can say is, before watching the movie I did not have a hint indication who Annemarie Schwarzenbach was or what was her life story..and I have to confess that the movie was hardly a help to reach these data.. and even it was not successful to persuade me to do some research by typing few words on google website; however, all I can say is that the actress Jeanette Hain was great with her mute facial expression she really played well and showed a deep depression mental status, as it is in real.

After all , based on the script the movie has happened in turkey and Tehran as well as Afghanistan.. but believe me I am familiar with the area , it was all about an Arabic desert in morocco.. Turkish people and persian people are completely different in face and culture as well as in language which is not arabic..

I suppose for making a film like this- documentary type- a thorough research about all these minor elements is mandatory..


The movie's storyline is pat and quaint. Two women travel through the middle east and discover themselves. Unfortunately, if you are looking for a movie about the middle east and central Asia this is absolutely terrible.

The producers of the film either did no research or were unbelievably lazy when filming it. To begin with, and most glaringly incorrect, the Nuristanis, as they were known in the thirties, and indeed since the 1890s and their forceful conversion by Abdul-Rahman Shah of Aghnaistan, were not nomads. In fact they have not been nomads since the Aryan invasions of central Asia over three milenia ago.

Second, the city that is filmed as Tehran is not Tehran, which is understandable, however the geography of the area around the city could not be more strikingly DIFFERENT than the city of Tehran, which is surrounded on all side by a large mountain range, which predominates all of the cities views.

Third, Persian, despite the fact it is spoken in Iran and Afghanistan, is never heard in movie. When there are native speakers who do not speak in German they speak in Arabic. The 'Persian' guards at the border, in fact, say to each other 'Ma hadha rujal' (This is not a man) and not 'in mard nist' as it would be in Persian. Also, the love song between the Indian princess and one of the main characters is obviously in Spanish. While talking in the garden one of the main characters says that the Quran uses the words 'Ferdos' and 'jehaan' and makes some reference to drugs afterwords. These words certainly never appear in the Quran as they are Persian for Paradise (indeed, Ferdos and Paradise are very distant cognates between our languages) and 'World' respectively, though Jehaan is admittedly close to 'Jehennan' which is hell in Arabic. When they encounter the nomads in the desert the language spoken is also Arabic, this despite the fact that there are NO native speakers of Arabic in Iran and Afghanistan and its use is primarily religious, with some use in education at that time.

When they are stopped in Iran before they reach the Afghan border the people they encounter are wholly unlike any Iranian group. Their tents are typically bedouin with carpets decorating the walls and a high profile. In Iran it is also extremely uncommon for people to wear Turbans unless they are a cleric. The language spoken is clearly Arabic from the initial greeting of 'Ahlan wa Sahlan.' When they do reach Kabul the desert they find themselves in is sandy, totally unlike the rock dirt that is found in the arid parts of the Hindu Kush mountain range. There is an absence of the light green scrub that covers the ground in the summer and spring. The area is also not wholly consumed by the extreme mountains of the mountain range that won its name, The Indian Killers, because of its difficult and limiting ground.

In short, the story line is the only thing in this movie that holds any water and it is still weak and common place. It lacks any real draw to it, being merely the tale of two women trying to learning about themselves as they get to Nuristan, however, even that is still-born and no real development is felt, leaving the characters in the end just where they were in the beginning and nothing has changed except that world war two has broken loose. In short, this is a really bad movie that I would have rated at one star except for the good footage of Bedouin and the deserts of the Levant, even if they are misnamed.


Whatever the merits of the film, it is poorly researched. As others have pointed out, the movie shows locals in Iran speaking in Arabic, rather than Persian. That is enough to lose credibility for anyone who has the slightest knowledge of the area or the country. The landscape could not be more different from the actual.

Other factual errors: A train is shown to be operating in Afghanistan, while Afghanistan does not have railways. The Turkish ambassador is wearing a Fez (the red hat), whereas the Fez was banned by Turkey much before the time in which the movie is set. The Turkish ambassador's daughter is actually dressed as an Indian, and Indian classical music is playing in the background in many scenes. I suppose the filmmakers meant to show an exotic woman, and sari was what they decided would make her exotic.


Usually I love Lesbian movies even when they are not very good. I'm biased, I guess!

But this one is just the pits. Yes, the scenery and the buildings are beautiful, and there is a brief but beautiful erotic interlude, but otherwise this movie is just a complete waste of time. Annamarie alternates between sulking and getting high/stoned/passing out on whatever drug or booze is handy, and Ella inexplicably puts up with this abominable behavior through the entire movie. At no time are we given any insight into why this is so, or even why Annamarie is so depressed and withdrawn.

If there had at least been some kind of closure in the (potentially romantic? we don't even know!) relationship between the two, there might have been some kind of satisfaction. But although Annamarie at one point asks Ella "why do you love me?" Ella doesn't even acknowledge this. It's never really clear whether this is anything more than an (ill-behaved) Lesbian on a boring road trip with a straight woman.

Even the interactions between the two women and the local people they meet on the journey, which could have been lively and informative, are instead flat, tedious and mostly incomprehensible.

There is one good joke in the movie, although I'm sure it was unintentional. The women travel in a two-seat Ford coupe with a middling sized trunk. Yet when they set up camp, they have an enormous tent, cots, sleeping gear, and even a table, chair, and typewriter! On top of that, when they board a ferry, we see piles of luggage, presumably theirs, presumably also carried in the little Ford's trunk!

And through the entire film, we never see one gas station, or anywhere that looks like it would actually have any place to buy gasoline. Mostly they travel through endless miles of desolate desert. So where did they get fuel?

There may not be too many Lesbian films out there, good or bad, but there are plenty that are better than this, and very few that are worse. Leave this one in the rack.


We went to the movie with a group because the play we were going to was cancelled. It is without doubt one of the worst movies ever. It is not that i don't like cult-movies I do. But nothing happens in the film. One does not feel any connection with the characters whatsoever. endless times without dialog. And the car. How do thay carry a huge tent and beds chairs and clothing for every day in that car? It is a two seater! I have to say however the scenery is beautiful, but not in a movie, the director should have made a photoshoot of the movie, so that we could skip about 80 minutes of useless time in with nothing happens anyway.

 I would not recommend it, as it is a waste of your time


One of Frances Farmer's earliest movies; at 22, she is absolutely beautiful. Bing Crosby is in great voice, but the songs are not his best. Martha Raye and Bob Burns are interesting, but their comedy, probably great in its time, is really corny today. Roy Rogers also appears- in a singing role. In my view only worth watching if you are a Frances Farmer fan, and possibly a Bing Crosby fan.


"Tapeheads", a scrappy, intermittently funny spoof of the music video business, might have been the perfect comedic short, and stars John Cusack and Tim Robbins are effortlessly in the swing of the nonsensical chaos involved. They play two semi-savvy security guards in Los Angeles who start their own company, Video Aces, making hilarious videos for groups, parties, and one deathbed star. It's too bad the filmmakers had to invent a dim side-plot to pad the running time (shenanigans involving a crooked politician and his henchmen which doesn't do much except take away from the movie's primary strength, sending-up the music culture of the late-'80s). Still, Cusack and Robbins create a couple of originals here: nerdy but loose, street-smart without being hipsters or posers, these guys are on the same nutty wavelength, and they never put each other down. They're the real thing in buddy-comedies. *1/2 from ****