Many days after seeing Conceiving Ada, I am still in awe that any group of people would spend so much time to make such an atrocious film.

No one ought see this film in hopes of learning anything of consequence about Ada Lovelock, her colleagues or the product of her endeavors.

Likewise, no one ought to see this film in hopes of being entertained.

As a sci-fi film, this would unquestionably be a horrendous failure. Somehow, the main character manages to bring the past to life and interact with it on her personal computer--with the advice and encouraging words of Timothy Leary. I doubt anyone could suspend their disbelief enough to keep this from seeming absolutely absurd.

As a drama film, this would unquestionably be a horrendous failure. Somehow, the writer/director manages to fill eighty-five minutes with constant, unnecessary, annoying and trivial drama over essentially nothing. I doubt that anyone could feel that all the drama in the film serves only as an irritating distraction.

I find it difficult to fully express my degree of contempt for Conceiving Ada. The circumstances under which I saw it forbid me from leaving the theater but there is no question that I would have otherwise. I am still angry that I wasted the time that it took to see it. Only that I might more effectively criticize this movie, I wish that I were more articulate.


If you make it through the opening credits, this may be your type of movie. From the first screen image of a woman holding her hands up to her face with white sheets blowing in the background one recalls a pretentious perfume commercial. It's all downhill from there.

The lead actress is basically a block of wood who uses her computer to reach into the past, and reconstruct the memories of photographs, to talk history's overlooked genius, Ada, who conceived the first computer language in the 1800s.

The low budget graphics would be forgivable if they were interesting, or even somewhat integral to the script.

Poor Tilda Swinton is wasted.


Despite some occasionally original touches, like the "virtual sets" that provide the background for the Victorian interiors featuring Ada Lovelace and her circle, this film falls short and ultimately disappoints. Newcomer Francesca Faridany seems talented, but is wasted as Emmy, a character who by mid-film is reduced to nothing more than staring at a monitor watching Lady Ada narrate an autobiography. 'Conceiving Ada' takes off briefly when Lady Ada (Tilda Swinton) appears; the camera lingers on her facial expressions, mannerisms, even making her appear to be translucent or momentarily invisible, apporting into scenes to dramatize Emmy's "virtual" rendering of her.

A straightforward biopic of Ada Lovelace would have been worthwhile, but this film unfortunately makes a hash of both Lady Ada's life, and that of a modern-day computer scientist (and her broadly-drawn, doltish boyfriend).


This was a nice attempt at something but it is too pretentious and boring to rise above it's low budget trappings. The use of virtual sets almost works but at some points it fails miserably. They made good use of the small budget I guess. I just wish the story and most of the acting was better. There are a lot of parts where you see what they were aiming for and it would of been great if they actually hit those marks but they don't. Confusing and unbelievable story. Bad DVD transfer too. It doesn't take much for me to watch a movie in one sitting. This I had to shut off. It was too boring. I can do slow movies. But just make them appealing in some aspect. Visually, story-wise, acting, etc. This was lacking in all departments so it never added up to an engrossing experience. Maybe the film maker's next attempt will be better.


Yes, In 35 years of film going I have finally viewed the stinker that surpasses all other ghastly movies I have seen. Beating 'Good Will Hunting' Baise Moi' and 'Flirt' for sheer awfulness. This is pretentious blige of the first order... not even entertaining pretentious bilge. The effects are cheap, and worse - pointless.

The script seems to have been written by a first year film student who doesn't get out much but wants to appear full of portent! The acting is simply undescribably bad - Tilda Swinton caps a career filled with vacuous woodeness with a performance which veers neurotically between comotose and laughable 'intensity'. Apparently, some fool out there has allowed the director of this film to make another one... be warned


Encompassing virtual reality, the potential of computers, communication with the past, the ongoing struggle to express your identity in a constraining society, and the fascinating Ada Byron Lovelace portrayed by the fascinating Tilda Swinton, this film should have been great. But it is lousy, terrible if you consider the potential! The acting - aside from Tilda Swinton and Karen Black - veers from tolerable to atrocious. The plot construction is awkward to say the least - the modern day programmer is a dull one-note character, but half the movie is spent setting up her character, and then when Ada finally appears, it is to narrate the events of her life, not to present an engaging story (Swinton almost pulls this off, though). You never fully get to know her as a real person, just an icon from a grad student's history paper.

The digital effects, such as a digital dog and bird, are lousy and distracting, considering it was 1997 and not 1985. And, finally, the script is just bad. Bad, often pretentious dialog - especially the fights between the programmer and her boyfriend, which made me squirm - cold and distant characters, and zero attempt to create a sense of wonder. The programmer successfully contacts a person in the past! Astonishing! But it hardly seems to surprise anyone, and her boyfriend says, "Well, be careful." (Although we're given no clue then or later why it might be dangerous, and it never seems to actually be dangerous.)

Also, despite being about computers and Ada Lovelace and her love of mathematics, it is clear no one involved with the script had any knowledge of mathematics OR computers - any references to these subjects come across as complete mumbo jumbo that defies any suspension of disbelief.

One scene, towards the end of the movie, is quite good, a monolog by Tilda Swinton expressing her sadness at the fragility of life but her joy in that life. Poignant, passionate, and insightful, it seems to be dropped in from another movie.

So I am disappointed in this movie, because it is a missed opportunity for a fascinating little cult film. If you find the subject matter interesting, you might want to rent it, but be forewarned. See Orlando for another, much much better examination of gender roles in history with a great Tilda Swinton performance.

***spoiler/question: * *

At the end of the movie, Ada asks that her memories not be preserved (in what I thought was the best scene in the movie). But then the modern day programmer seems to do it anyway, transferring the memories into her little girl (hence the title of the movie). Am I correct, that the programmer violated Ada's wishes without even struggling over it? Or is this another confusing plot point that I'm misinterpreting?


I haven't seen anything this bad since I walked out of the James Bond movie "Moonraker" twenty years ago. I managed to sit through the entirety of this one only because of Tilda Swinton, but there was nothing she could do to save this beast.

As a cross between "Pi", "Orlando", and "Tron", this movie failed miserably in every aspect of moviemaking. The characters were cardboard and unable to evoke any kind of sympathy. The plot was wholly unbelievable. The acting was, with the exception of Swinton, amateur. The computer graphics were worse than in "Tron." Timothy Leary was extremely annoying. I could go on, but what's the point.

The only good thing I can say about this film is that Tilda Swinton was in it. I have no idea why an actress of her caliber consented to appear in such a dud, but she most likely regrets it now.

Don't waste your money or your time on this stinker. There's nothing worth seeing here.


I can't believe anyone thought there was anything original or interesting about this movie. I'm a fan of science fiction as much as the next guy, and I can enjoy even old movies with ridiculous premises as long when they are written by someone other than a monkey. (See, for example, my glowing review of Altered States [1980].)

A monkey could have explained better exactly why I should for a second take seriously the basic idea behind this movie. The problem is not that the producers had a low budget--it's that they didn't care.

Now, to publicly humiliate the worthless magazines whose glowing reviews appear on the box:

Chicago Tribune

San Francisco Chronicle

San Francisco Bay Guardian

(Actually, I enjoy reading the latter two. Still, their movie reviewing credibility has gone through the floor. But I know if I ever make a movie with handheld camera, a cheesy plot and stupid effects, I'll show it to these journalists and remind them what they said about Conceiving Ada.)


From the awful death scenes to guns that fire without making sounds to a character called the Fiend. It's all tiresome, slow moving, unimaginative drivel. It was OK seeing the guy with the cape and the hunchback lurking around. Visually it was creepy and probably occupied the moviegoer of the time, but even in 1936 one would think that there would have been a little more imagination and verisimilitude to even a film like this. I just kept waiting for something to happen of any importance as people stood around making speeches and acting like they were posing at an office picnic. And then there are those bullets as a previous commentator mentioned. Perhaps the best clue would have been to search for a water spot on someone's pants pocket.


"A stage company cast finds themselves terrified when a bizarre killer known as 'The Fiend' targets them for death. A pair of reporters and their clumsy photographer set out to work the story of 'The Fiend' and find themselves targets as well. Just as you think our trio of heroes has the case solved, you're thrown another twist that has you wondering who the killer really is," according to the DVD sleeve's synopsis.

Taking "The Hunchback of Notre Dame" to Hollywood, producer Sam Katzman's lack of studio settings probably helps "A Face in the Fog" look interesting, especially toward the end (1930s traffic). The direction could be improved upon; for example, the camera angle on the fight scene is not helpful. The budget appears slight. Under the circumstances, most of the silent/talkie crossover cast perform it amiably.

**** A Face in the Fog (2/1/36) Robert F. Hill ~ Lloyd Hughes, June Collyer, Al St. John


I normally only write reviews for movies I really hated or really liked. And, as you can probably tell from the number of stars up there, I didn't like it. By now, I assume you have read about the plot or maybe even seen the movie, so I'll skip the summary. Let's break this down, pros and cons:

Cons: The concept: The premise was set up to be interesting. Using Chaos theory as a theme was interesting. However, it wasn't carried out so well. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me that Chaos theory was kind of misrepresented. The event that occurred in the movie seemed more like contrived coincidence than anything. I guess the Butterfly effect was represented by the whole "God(s) causes Tsunami to bring back statue." The presentation comes off as really sloppy though. Some people call this intelligent, but it just seems to be another souped up action film.

Storyline: Is it just me, or does it seem that Kamal just threw this together to give him an excuse to play ten roles? The plot is extremely contrived; Govind kept losing the vial so many times in obscure accidents (his friend just happens to mix up the vial with a package he was sending to India, a crazy old lady just happens to throw the vial into an idol, half the cast just happens to unexpectedly meet up in the same hospital, and the case with the idol just happened to get mixed up with one that belonged to a famous singer.)

CGI: Oh god, the CGI. It was even worse than the special effects in Jaws 3, and those sucked. Right away, I could tell which parts were animated. Even my ten-year-old cousin knows that underwater cars don't look like that.

Stunts: Yes, I now that action scenes in Tamil movies aren't realistic, but the stunts in this one were horrid and actually distracted me from the story.

Make up: I have to admit, they did a better job than expected. I thought Kamal would be playing people with similar skin tones, so the two fake white guys and the fake Japanese Aikido guy caught me off guard. However, it was still pretty bad, I could easily tell which ones were wearing masks.

The songs: The music was distracting and out-of-place in many instances.

Asin: Her character was possibly the most annoying one in the movie. She was loud, ditsy, and obsessed irrationally about that idol. I actually found myself wishing she would die.

Plot holes and Fridge Logic: Let me get this straight: a lab monkey was smart enough to get past a password-locked door, but not intelligent enough to tell the difference between a bar of chocolate and a vial with a deadly virus in it. And then, an ex-CIA agent who's after the vial figures out it's headed for India. Instead of immediately following it, he marries a pole dancer first. A famous Punjabi singer with cancer checks into a small town hospital in the third world when he could easily afford the best medical treatment available. Furthermore, he gets shot in the throat with a bullet. You'd think he would be killed, but instead, the magic bullet has cleared his tumor. You read that right, a BULLET knocked out the tumor.

Pros... The Naidu Character: Possibly the only likable part of the movie was his comedy.


Some of my old friends suggested me to watch this movie but I got chance only recently. I had high hopes of seeing something interesting from Kamal Hans, what I saw was bunch of garbage camera angles mixed at high speed. I could not understand what was the message except demeaning Hinduism. I am more like many religion type but I felt Kamal Hasan is a man low character to have orchestrated this kind of thought. He could have made a horror movie than this crap. He tried to add Hollywood genre of viruses and god forbid he did not convert that guy into a mutant and ultimately going to go for world domination. This is a much befitting movie for a film school vs regular public. Shame on him for not holding up to the talent he has. Starting of story tried Chaos to borrow ideas from Butterfly effect, then in between little religious harmony at the cost of insulting Hinduism (Once again I insult Hinduism more but this movie has no equal and my insult is same for religion in general which may have made this movie intellectual one.)


The acting was horrible and they got both of the sports wrongggg.......not only did they get the figure skating rules wrong, but also they rules of GIRLS Ice Hockey. In GIRLS ice hockey you cannot check. You also don't BLOCK for someone. Not all they girls are disgusting gross mean and big. I play hockey and I'm only 4'11 and have been asked to go to schools like the one in the movie. Also not all hockey players hate figure skaters. A lot of current girls hockey players were once figure skaters themselves. Also we skate A LOT faster then the ones in the movie. I was embarrassed by the movie it gave people the idea that we suck.......although i must mention that it is difficult to transition between the sports because of the toe pick on the figure skates.....also some of those twirly moves KAtelin was doing on the ice you couldn't do in a regular hockey game. She basically tripped the person, which is illigal. Its also unrealistic that she would get a HOCKEY scholarship when she figure skates. That really made me angry that scholarship would normally be used to someone who could benefit the team.


I can't say this is one of the best films I have ever seen. But then again, I can't say it's one of the worst I have ever seen.

OK, so it's basically a girl does skating, is good at it, wants to go to an expensive school, can't afford it and has to take a Hockey Scholarship. She has to hide her skating secret from her friends.

Personally, I didn't like the actress playing Katelin. She absolutely couldn't cry to save her life, just made wailing sounds, like a toddler pretending to cry to get it's own way.

Katelin was just an annoying person. The way she tried to act all nice and helpful to people. Also the part where the two skaters are calling her names and they say something about her choreographer and she says she 'draws the line' made me cringe.

We all knew where it was going to go with her and Spencer. Classically they didn't like each other and sort of get together at the end was just typical.

Overall, I think this is a movie to watch if you like skating but if you don't mind the main skater being extremely annoying. It's good to kill time basically.


Okay, when I came on the board for this movie, I was really expecting people to be making fun of it. I was surprised to see that people over the age of 7 liked it. I enjoyed the movie... but only b/c me and my little sister (who is, in fact only 10) made fun of the whole thing.

I am sorry Jordan, but that acting was awful. You know a movie is headed for the toilet when the lead cannot act. And it didn't even have a good script or plot to redeem it. I also thought that the character of Pamela was very very lame... border-lining pathetic.

Even with that being said, I thought there were a few good actors, such as gorgeous Spencer, Hollywood, and Ronnie. Still, not enough to redeem the movie.

Two things about this movie that I just can't get over:

1.) That that Spencer guy would fall for her. Okay, eww. I looked up the dates and while in reality, he is only about four years older than her, the difference in "Go Figure" seemed much larger. Jordan is a very pretty girl, but in GF, she seemed like 10 or 12... she seemed like a little kid! Jake Abel (Spencer) seemed like a college student.

2.) That there is any way that Kristi Yamaguchi would come just to skate for one girl. I mean, I know that Katelin is good and everything, but it still just seemed kinda unlikely that Kristi would go to a boarding school that didn't even have scholarships for skating, or that a school would have employed a skating coach with such connections.

That all being said... it wasn't the worst movie ever known, but it wasn't very good even by DCOM standards, which I consider quite low.


This movie was probably the biggest waste of my life ever. The acting was pathetic. Jordan Hinson could not show any upset emotions. At the beginning of the movie, she was supposed to be discouraged. Instead, she bobbed her head with her bottom lip stuck out. She sobbed pitifully without any tears for the crying scene. I was almost angry that out of all girls who wanted to be actresses, they had to pluck out her. Everyone else was suffering from over-acting as well. It was flat out annoying. It was also an insult to figure skaters. Jordan took a month to train, and they cast her as a person who makes the Olympic team. It's practically spitting on the effort real figure skaters put into their work. A pitiful excuse for a movie, and a pitiful attempt to associate hockey and skating. Don't waste your life. It doesn't even deserve one star.


I personally hated this movie because it was predictable, the characters were stereotypical ,and the whole idea was a rip off of "The Cutting Edge", and "Cadet Kelly".

The main character is a snotty girl who gets shipped of to a place where she doesn't belong. The whole place hates her, and to make things worse there is a hot guy that seemingly doesn't like her ( well duh the whole damn school can't stand you). Amazingly she finds a way to fit in and make everyone to like her plus, gets the guy to fall head over heels in love with her. Then comes the choice, where she must choose between figure skating and hockey. She chooses hockey then she goes to the figure skating nationals,and gets to be on the Olympic team. No real surprise there.

This whole movie was so damn predictable You knew what was going to happen before you even saw it. This was so awful I nearly puked, and by the time I was finished watching it, I had an awful headache and the urge to shoot myself for watching such crap. Don't watch this unless you are under ten, or actually like crappy tween movies.


this movie was a horrible excuse for...a movie. first of all, the casting could have been better; Katelyn the main character looked nothing like her TV mom.

also, the plot was pathedic. it was extremely cliché and predictable. the ending was very disappointing and cheesy. (but thats all i'll say about that).

the nail in the bag though, was a scene when Katelyn (jordan hinson) was supposed to be crying, but the girl couldn't cry on command! there were no tears streaming down her face, just a few unbelievable sobs. she is not a dynamic actress at all. she gave the same fake little laugh identical to that of hillary duff on lizzie Maguire (sp?). thats when the movie went from not-so-good, to just plain bad. it really looked like she was acting.

in a nutshell: this movie was really bad! it was kind of a mix of every cliché kid movie from the 1990's that everyone's sick of--only worse!

i give it an 'F', because it was just so darn hard to sit through (b/t/w, i was babysitting when i saw it).

however, you may like it if your 9 or under. ;)


(NOTE: I thought I'd be the only one writing what I did below, but I see the others here agree. I guess it was pretty obvious - this was overdoing the bait-the-cat bit. Anyway, here is what I had written:)

The owners have left on vacation for two weeks - a trip to California - leaving the cat (Sylvester) all alone and locked in the house. That means no milk, but the cat, to his relief, does find a bunch of canned tuna. However, to his dismay, he can't find the opener.

It turns out the little mouse in the house has it...and baits the cat with it. This is a mean rodent who keeps teasing Sylvester with the opener and then yanking it away at the last second. Sylvester tries everything possible to open the can of tuna but can't do it.

This is a frustrating story, and why they make the sadistic mouse the "good guy" is beyond me. It's like some of the Tom & Jerry cartoons where poor Tom always gets the worst of it even though many times the little mouse starts the conflict!


The opening scenes move as fluidly as frozen velveeta. The attempt at dramatic dialogue only makes me wish I had better control of the fast forward control. Vampires are usually portrayed as sexy and intelligent or mangy disgusting creatures. This vampire tries to seduce his prey by imitating a lost puppy. I usually tally a body count, so there was a cat (which doesn't count) a bum, a girl who fell out of the sky with a sword in her (whatever that was about) and then the plot. Foley artists are respected for using celery to create the sound of a broken arm, but using the sound of biting into an apple for a vampire biting a victim is just plain silly. I liked Warlock, but this movie just stunk so bad that we turned it off, and it was so forgettable we rented it a year later only to turn it off again.


I love Julian Sands and will at least attempt to watch anything he's in, but this movie nearly did me in. I'm hard pressed to remember when I found any other movie to move....so......slow.........ly.....zzzzzzzzzzzz

Pop it in the VCR when you've run out of sleeping pills.


The movie opens upon Julian Sands, lying on his back, a black kitten drooling blood into his awaiting mouth from where he holds it, about two feet above him. That was so provocative, and I thought, "Here we go! A good vampire movie!"

And then it died. That was literally the only scene which captured any part of the imagination. It was slow, uneventful drivel thereafter. I was vastly disappointed, as my previous experience with Sands' acting was quite enjoyable. However, this attempt was obviously misdirected and the screenplay left a lot to be desired.

Even Julian Sands's questionable performance could not begin to save this already sunken barge of a movie.

It rates a 1.1/10 from...

the Fiend :.


This is the movie that I use to judge all other bad movies, and so far there hasn't been anything close.

The only good thing I can say is that after watching this I know that I have seen the worst movie I will ever see.


I watch lots of scary movies (or at least they try to be) and this has to be the worst if not 2nd worst movie I have ever had to make myself try to sit through. I never knew the depths of Masacism until I rented this piece of moldy cheese covered in a used latex contraceptive. I am a fan of Julian Sans, but this is worse than I would hope for him.

On the other hand the story was promising and I was intrigued...for the first minute and a half while the credits rolled and I had yet to see what pain looked like first hand. Perhaps there are some viewers out there that enjoyed this and can point me in the right direction, but then again I know of those viewers who understand if not commemorate me, especially when we had to turn the video off, and that simply is NOT done with our watching (we had to make one exception obviously).

If it were up for a remake, I'd give it a chance so long as they had at most 1% of the original incorporated into it. That's all.


"Kids Like These" could have been a decent film, given the subject matter. But instead it has become a below-average, run-of-the-mill TV-movie of the week, with not much going for it. The acting is stale, the plot predictable and the direction non-existent. For a better movie on the same subject, try the excellent "Le Huitième Jour", a film that really cares about the people with Down-syndrome. In "Kids Like These" they are merely used as an excuse for weepy sentimentality. Pretty appalling. 1/10


"They Are Among Us" is poor science fiction at best. Mediocre acting bogs down this film. The plot holes are numerous. Aliens that somehow came to earth on a meteor and have been hiding among us for over 100 years, but need a plastic surgeon to make them appear human. In their alien form they supposedly have exo-skeletons (which is why they need the plastic surgery) but when you see them they have teeth and fingernails. The heroine's father "disappeared" after Project Blue Book closed, but was supposedly an F-16 pilot. And on and on. If you want to see an alien invasion movie, pick "Invasion of the Body Snatchers", and see how it is done right.


My friends and I rented this from Blockbuster because we saw Nana Visitor's name on the box. This movie is a travesty I hope she negates from her CV.

The "plot" was lose and flaccid, the acting was mostly dry and unbearable in some parts. The movie made no sense whatsoever. The rough plot of an alien parasite species that infects humans has been done many times by films with much better scripts than this, for example, invasion of the body-snatchers and The faculty.

If you ever have the misfortune to come across this movie, I suggest you burn it.

How it classes itself as a horror movie when there was no use of fear, suspense, gore, terror or any of the usual horror film techniques I don't know, however if you still find yourself wanting to watch this film I suggest you have a lot of sugar before hand, so you can find parts of it funny.


Words fail me.

And that isn't common.

Done properly this could have been great, funny spoof B-movie sci-fi, but sadly, it was not to be. Rarely in the field of drama have so many competent actors struggled so vainly with such a dogs-breakfast of a script. I can only endorse the previous reviewer's comments - go clean the bathroom. In fact do ANYTHING except watch this film.

Positives: Lucy Beeman's nose. Negatives: Everything else.

Most apposite line: "This isn't going anywhere".

If only every plastic surgeon could meet with such a fate.


I can't believe how awful this movie turned out to be. I feel magnanimous even referring to it as a "movie". The acting was flat, the editing was terrible and the plot leaves many major questions unanswered. The premise was OK, if unoriginal: a small group of aliens is living in the US and trying to slowly take over humanity. But it goes rapidly downhill from there. How could they convince a "human" to accept an alien as his wife in order to make they alien-human hybrid they require? They show a larval alien but never show what it does. They have a plastic surgeon that can produce perfect looking skin on an industrial scale. They throw in the obligatory huge alien monster with teeth. The ending was almost too painful to watch. I suppose that I'm mostly disappointed that Bruce Boxlietner would have anything to do with this. How could he say to the huge alien monster with teeth, "Get away from him you son of a b*tch" with a straight face? It's a long fall from his Babylon 5 days. Avoid this at all costs.


I am very tolerant of really bad sci/fi and horror movies - I've been watching them since I was 4 or 5, so I've seen some really bad stuff, but I deal with it. I've even watched a lot of SciFi Channel movies so I know not to expect much - a usually promising movie that has no ending to speak of. Hope springs eternal, I guess - or the triumph of hope over experience, as they say. Unfortunately, this is a dog right from the beginning and I knew it, but like a moth to the flame, I kept thinking something, anything, interesting would happen. It doesn't. All of the actors give a decent performance - given the script, I don't know how they all kept straight faces. It has something to do with collagen-starved worm parasite creatures who are slowly taking over the human race, one body at a time. There's an evil plastic surgeon who collaborates with the enemy by giving them the outward appearance of humans...don't worry, he gets what's coming to him. The slug people themselves don't really know where they came from, they think they might have thumbed a ride on a meteor that landed on earth, but...somehow they know about the members of slug royalty among them - the slug princess has managed to breed with a human being who knows that she's the worm queen and loves her for her self...oh, must I go on? Please, I implore you, do not waste 2 hours of your life watching this...anything would be better...think of the worst, least enjoyable way you can spend two hours...it would be better than this.


No scenario, bad actors (poor Melissa Gilbert)... Beurk Beurk Beurk ...

Give a such budget to make this... In Belgium, we make ten films which win all prices in Cannes with this.

Last time that I've seen a such NULL-Film was Hypercube. But scenario was better.

Is anyone knows if the director was a graduate in school-film or a cop ?

The better things in this film was the word "End".

Why authorize to sell this ? 1ç is to expensive.

I've pay ten dollars to buy this.

For me, pay for this was my BIG MISTAKE of millennium.

Too bad.

Next time I'll break my arm but buy this type of sh*t.


"Bullfighter" was made in 2000 but it is being released on video 5 years later for some reason. I wonder why? Could it be: The confusing storyline, the incomprehensible dialogue said by Oliver Martinez, and the annoying editing? It's got to be. I think the plot was Mary (Michelle Forbes) and Jacque (Oliver Martinez) go on a mystical road trip. They meet a lot of wacky characters and avoid some evil ones too. The movie looks great and there is a lot of style, but there is no substance. Most movies, when trying to subtle, don't call attention to themselves with unanswered plot developments, and weak special effects.

Don't be fooled by the cover: Willem Dafoe is in it for 2 minutes at most.


I didn't know Willem Dafoe was so hard up for bucks that he'd disgrace himself with such shocking hamming in this monstrosity. Hell: I'll donate that money that I was going to send to Ethiopia if he's that desperate. I have never seen such a pathetic and disgusting film for a long time...who paid for this? They are either pulling some tax scam or insane. A 5-year old would be ashamed of the plot, and I'd rather get cancer than sit through more than the hour I suffered already. Everybody involved should be locked up for a year in the sodomy wing of a third world prison. Avoid at all costs. I'd give it minus 10 if possible...unbelievable.


I only rented this movie because of promises of William Dafoe, and Robert Rodriguez. I assumed that upon seeing RR's name on the cover (as an actor) that this movie would be good. It sounds like a movie that Rodriguez would of made so if He's going to lend his name to it, than it has to be good right? WRONG WRONG WRONG. By far the worst editing since "Manos Hands of fate". The way it was edited made no sense and made the movie impossible to follow and after the first 30 minutes you wont even want to try to follow it anymore. I have no idea how Dafoe and Rodriguez got involved in this film, maybe they owed somebody, but they are way to good for this. Besides they were only in this movie for a couple minutes apiece and Rodriguez didn't even talk. So if you wanna see a movie with Poor editing, poor acting, and confusing storyline than be my guest but don't say you weren't warned.


Some very interesting camera work and a story with much potential. But it never comes together as anything more than a student's graduate thesis in film school.

There are two primary reasons for this. Fist, there is not a single likable character, not even a villain we might admire for his/her chutzpah. Secondly, all the acting is awful - even from veteran Willem DaFoe. The ham is so plentiful here, you feel like you're at a picnic - but one of those wretched company employee picnics where you drink too much cheap beer and get your hangover before you even stop drinking. Then you eat an underdone hotdog and throw up.

All right, I'm being a little rough on a young director who might still go places - as I said, the camera work is quite good.

But I feel cheated - the blurb for this film suggests we will get to watch a "Modern western", and the DVD packaging has pictures on it that suggest this as well - but nobody actually connected to the film's making seems to know that this is the kind of film they're supposed to be making.

That betrayal is what hurts; but even without it, the fact remains that we don't like these characters, we feel embarrassed for the actors, the story is hopelessly muddled, and in the last analysis, we just don't care.

I took it out of the DVD player about half way through. but the rental store wouldn't give me my money back.

Now, that really hurts.


I bought this movie last weekend at my local Movie Gallery. It was buy 2 get 2 free and I needed one more so I chose this one. Horrible mistake. The box reads like it would be a really good movie. Well, it starts out like it is going to be this great movie. For about 5 minutes, that is. The movie is about a young woman, Laila, who gets killed trying to save her beau, Jack, from a bull. Laila's dad, Cordobes, is a rancher that the townspeople are afraid of. He assumes that Jack killed Laila because she was supposedly afraid of this bull, and goes on this hunt to find him. That was the first 5 minutes that is good. What follows after that is only gonna get 100 times worse. Whoever wrote the script, in my opinion, had to of been on some kind acid trip or something because nothing else made any sense what so ever. Jack is on the run and finds this traveling radio DJ named Mary who gives him a ride. I think Mary is supposed to be a virgin Mary type character. You know, Jesus' mother. But, who knows, I couldn't make heads or tails of it. As they're running... we get to see bad guys, magical visions, ghostly encounters, flashbacks, etc... And all these things are done in such a way that your brain hurts from trying to figure out what's going on. Needless to say, I took the movie back and exchanged it for something else. It's horrible I tell ya, horrible. And, there is absolutely no bull-fighting in this movie. Unless you count the first minute of the movie. Hope I helped some other people keep from wasting their time on this movie.


I only watched this movie because I was so impressed with Olivier Martinez in SWAT. But this is no SWAT. SWAT had a plot and some likable characters and made sense. Bullfighter had none of these.

I should have realized that it couldn't possibly be any good, after all, the always painfully bad Michelle Forbes had a starring role.

One poster here called the movie incoherent. Another called it the worst movie ever. Both gave the movie far too much credit. I am so glad I got it from the library for free, yet I still feel ripped off.

IMDb needs to include a "0" in the "rate this film" vote, just for movies like this one.


I began watching this movie with my girl-friend. And after 5 minutes I was alone.

I succeed to stay until the end. It has been a painful experience.

I liked jean hugues anglade, but I think that he needed to eat, as us, and thus he accepted to play in this movie.

There are only 5 characters, and the rest could be called 'art' or something that I couldn't express, but that I didn't understand at all.

The only worst movie I saw was crash, but I'm pretty sure now that I have enough experience to watch it successfully again.

good luck!! ;o)


"Arahan" adds nothing positive to the Kung Fu genre. To compare this confused motion picture with the inspired craziness and quality of Stephen Chow's films is a mistake.

Firstly the fight scenes are nothing new. All that is presented here has been done before and better by the likes of Yimou Zhang, Tony Jaa and Jackie Chan. Fights in intelligent Motion Pictures need logic. There seems no point serving blows that have no damaging effect as in the "Matrix" sequels.

The attractive female lead So-Yi Yoon captivated the screen but she never convincingly conquered the physical demands of the role as Ziyi Zhang had done so easily in "House Of Flying Daggers". Having a Martial Arts background serves well in Kung Fu movies. To cast actors inexperienced in these skills is a serious mistake (See Aya Ueto in "Asumi") unless you are a very talented director which as "Arahan" proves Seung-wan Ryoo is not.


This series has its ups and occasional downs, and the latter is the case, here. There's an agreeable amount of spatter, with an inventive implementation of the Baby Cart's weapons, but the editing film is a seriously disjointed, the film-making itself rougher than usual. At times, the action slows to a crawl as the camera follows the wordless wanderings of the "cub," who nearly gets lost early on. All in all, disappointment.

That said, there's a spaghetti eastern quality to the music and action that may win the approval of dedicated viewers. This installment spends much of its time following the minor misadventures of the little boy, who begins to stare into the abyss of death his father opened for him.


This movie is a muddled mish-mash of clichés from recent cinema. There are some promising ideas in there, but while the director was clearly aiming to wind up with a hauntingly ambiguous film, what he ended up with was a confusing mess. Lead actor Daniel Wu does a fair job but with no central theme it seems as though he doesn't have much to work with. Furthermore, the movie is largely devoid of scares (although, in fairness, there are some creepy moments amid the drudgery).

*MILD SPOILERS*

We have the mysterious death of an estranged twin, diabolical librarians, ghostly love interests, identity confusion, death by savage monkeys, oedipal conflict, abusive stepfathers, sublimated homosexuality, and crime gang connections. The only real commonality these elements share seems to be that they cause the protagonist to express a vague sense of confusion and discontent.

Perhaps the most disappointing aspect to this film is that despite the brother's death by monkeys being strongly featured on the DVD cover, the act itself is never directly portrayed. Instead, director Julian Lee uses what appears to be stock footage of monkeys - not very scary.

*END SPOILERS*

Avoid this one. For an excellent psychological, ambiguous horror tale, check out the Korean film A Tale of Two Sisters (2003).


This is the first time I have commented on a film because I felt that if the right person read it, they might wake up and do something about it. Over the last few months, ABC Family began airing a new format of movies. I have seen the last three and enjoyed them. They were engaging and did the trick. My wife likes these films. I was looking forward to viewing "See Jane Date". The trailers looked and sounded great. Unfortunately, this is one film where the book must be light years ahead of the effort displayed by the writers and music people involved with this project. The year is 2003, the source (all bad), the score was as interesting as an elevator ride in a department store. It was intrusive and did not add any emotional content to the film at all. It worked against it. I work in the business of film and television . I enjoy being entertained. This is one instance where I kept thinking could it get any worse. The script had lines from another decade and I know these women can act but you wouldn't know it from this movie. To add to the overall experience, the end left me shaking my head. An advice to the executives at Disney, ABC , ABC Family and the producers: Under any circumstances please do not hire the composer or music supervisor to do any of your future films. They have lost their touch and they need to understand what the word "contemporary" , "present day" and "current" means when describing a romantic comedy. There is a world passing you by. All in all a huge disappointment from folks at Von Zerneck-Sertner and ABC Family.


I have to admit that i liked the first half of Sleepers. It looked good, the acting was even better, the story of childhood, pain and revenge was interesting and moving. A superior hollywood film. But...No one mentioned this so far (at least in the latest 20 comments), when it came to the courtroom scenes and Brat Pitt´s character followed his plan to rescue his two friends, who are rightly accused of murder, i felt cheated. This movie insulted my intelligence.

Warning spoilers!!

Why did anyone accept their false alibi, witnessed by the priest? If these two guys had been with him, why shouldn´t they tell this during the investigation? Amnesia? If you were the judge or member of the jury, would you believe it? Is it wise to give the motif of the murderers away?

I am sorry, but in the end, the story is very weak, and this angers me. This movie had great potential. 4/10


What is happening to ITV Drama. First, "Losing Gemma" quite simply the worst TV drama I have seen in years, and now "Perfect Parents" a complete shambles from start to finish. Whoever is responsible for commissioning this drivel should be receiving there P45 by special delivery.

In most Drama/Thrillers, a requirement to suspend certain levels of belief is necessary so that the the plot line can develop, but "Perfect Parents" took this to a new level,I suspended so much belief by the end of this nonsense I felt I had been force fed on a lorry load of "Magic mushrooms", it was like the scriptwriters had decided to try and create a "Drama by numbers" involving some serious issues - Religion, Education,Greed,Fear,Murder,Paedophillia the only trouble was as The great Eric Morecambe once said when playing a piano, "I'm playing all the right Notes, just not necessarily in the correct order". For your next Script guys, I suggest you try reading a few more books on script development than "Script writing For Dummies".

Due to the ridiculous Script and the utter lack of Tension in the Direction, the acting was suitably low key, not the fault of the actors as the cast was top notch. But I suggest that all of the actors involved in this sorry piece of drama should instruct their agents the next time the Postman attempts to deliver a script from ITV drama Department, make sure the letterbox is firmly nailed shut!!


what a preposterous story ,murder blackmail,child sex allegations ,gays and the catholic church.....absolute tripe. How is it that most UK based TV dramas ,sit coms etc have to include the obligortory Gay,its really getting tiresome now. Everybody accepts that there are Gay people in society just has there are other minority groups,but we don't want it ramming down our throats(i'll pass on this one) in every single show. Apart from the above, the drama went from what could have been an interesting little story into a pantomime,the priest was a paedophile and there are gays running about every where,oh yes just to be totally PC one of the gay couple was black.i am surprised at c ecclestone for even contemplating this when he read the script.


Slither is a horror comedy that doesn't really have enough horror or comedy to qualify as one or the other. It has one scene that is exceptionally good, any number of zingers that work, but very few real scares and not enough humor to maintain the movie. In addition, the script does not focus on the hero and heroine, and goes off kilter in several places.

A major failing of this film is that it introduces and then leaves its hero (Fillion) to follow Grant Grant (Michael Rooker) as he is first introduced and then becomes the monster. This whole part of the film drags - Michael Rooker's character isn't that interesting to us as a person, and watching as he goes through a series of motions while acting in the monster's interest might be interesting if this was Grant - Portrait of a Man Turning Into A Monster rather than a horror-comedy alien invasion movie. In the final analysis this movie's problems are in the script - it isn't that important to the audience how the monster acts or propagates. The purpose of a horror-comedy is to get the heroes backed up in a corner with shotguns and then throw bugs at them, with them cracking wise every time something frightening or disgusting happens. Instead we get an exploration of the alien's habits and tactics that just makes this part of the movie drag. The ostensible heroine (Elizabeth Banks as Starla Grant) is more central to this part, but nonetheless I felt the movie had left its narrative track, unless it planned on following Grant Grant all the way to the end.

When Fillion and his posse finally confront the alien the movie does begin to cook, but once again the problem is in the script. By this point that audience knows - and the characters should know - that Grant is not just suffering from some disease, and act accordingly (shotguns) - instead they continuously parley in the face of increasing evidence that this is not something that "let us get you to a hospital" is going to help. Although their reactions might have been human and real, these are characters in an action movie and simply should have done what the movie promised - delivered action. A lack of action scenes in a movie with as few ideas as this is a great failing.

*** SPOILERS AHEAD *** After the first confrontation and the bursting of the alien larval sack (a minor character and perhaps the best scene in the movie) the script once again betrays the movie. At this point one of the characters is almost taken over by the alien and develops an insight into the alien. The writer-director (Gunn) chooses as this character a completely new character, rather than one of already developed minor characters. Why? Why did he need to introduce a completely new character more than an hour into the movie that becomes central to the plot? By the time this character is attacked, we know hardly anything about her and could care less about her, even though she is a winsome teenage girl in her bath. Had Gunn decided not to use this character and just used one of the established minor characters, he could have completely avoided introducing her family, and saved time and money. Furthermore, the hero and heroine would have been filled in on the alien's plans without all the additional characters, and could have gotten around to blowing away aliens sooner and with more vigor.

My last criticism is based on the movie's look. Gunn is primarily a writer, or maybe it was budgetary constraints, but this movie looked ugly and uninteresting. Most of the action takes place at night in woods or on a field, and the screen simply looks drab. The sets in Wheelsy (the fictional town where the action takes place) look cheap. The whole movie looks cheap. Box Office Mojo states the films' budget was $15 million, newspapers say $29 million, and considering they didn't use any name talent, I would say the money did not show up on screen. The monster is just repulsive, and rarely looks deadly.

The last criticism is primarily based on the reality of the character's actions. By the time Fillion and Co have begun hunting Grant/the alien, one woman has disappeared and Grant is known to have been mutilating animals. At this point I was expecting the FBI or at least the State Police to show up and take over from the hick Sheriff. A woman has disappeared and likely been murdered, and a local has been acting psychotic. Time to call the authorities. But basically I was hoping that would happen because I just wanted some characters who would show up and ACT.

Although this movie is ostensibly a horror-comedy, the movie it bears the most resemblance to is Dreamcatcher in terms of monstrous invasion and the type of monster and its intentions. Whereas Dreamcatcher had much bigger problems with story (especially the entire Morgan Freeman subplot) and particularly the ending, in many ways it was stronger, primarily because the main characters were stronger, but more importantly because it looked beautiful. Although that may be anathema - preferring the movie that is weaker in general plot and structural spine because of production values - that just shows you how uninteresting I found the look of Slither.


Primal Species (1996, Dir. Jonathan Winfrey)

International terrorists get a surprise when their cargo turn out to contain living dinosaurs. The army commando team now have to think fast, if they want to prevent the extinction of the human species, instead of the reptiles.

You look at the cover and you gain your first impressions of the film. That is pretty much it. The acting is only just acceptable from a few characters. The story is poor, with the whole film based on the army and the marines trying to kill the dinosaurs. This film came out three years after 'Jurassic Park'. Instead, this film looks to have come out 13 years before 'Jurassic Park'. The dinosaurs costumes are so poorly made, and i do mean costumes. There are obviously people dressed up, and this film makes no attempts at hiding this. A scene when a dinosaur runs down a corridor is created in a way, in which it looks like someone is riding the creature. The is one good thing, which comes out of this film. The short running time. At only 1 hour and 15 minutes, it doesn't waste too much of your life, but still try to avoid it altogether.

"It's like a Friday the 13th Nightmare." - Officer (Brian Currie)


This is one of the silliest movies I have ever had the misfortune to watch! I should have expected it, after seeing the first two, but I keep getting suckered into these types of movies with the idea of "Maybe they did it right this time". Nope - not even close.

Where do I begin? How about with the special effects... To give you an idea of what passes for SFX in this movie, at one point a soldier is shooting at a "Raptor" as it runs down a hallway. Even with less than a second of screen time, the viewer can easily see that it is just a man with a tail apparently taped to him running around. Bad bad bad bad.

How about the acting? If that's what you can call it. There is one character who, I suppose, is supposed to be from the south. However, after living in the south for six years now, I have never heard this way of talking. Perhaps he has some sort of weird disability - the inability to talk normally. I find it fascinating that the character does nothing that requires him to have that accent - therefore there was no reason for the actor to try to do one.

How about the plot? It's pretty basic - Raptors escape, people with guns must hunt them down. I'm starting to wonder why the dinosaurs in these movies always seem to run into the nearest system of tunnels... wouldn't they stay outside to hunt prey? Oh well, at least they have the good sense to appear very very little in the movie which supposedly revolves around them.

Other things - Let's say you are in a building and you know that there are man eating raptors running around in it. Would you decide to take time out to have an argument about who is better - Army or Marine? And then decide to have an arm wrestling contest to settle it? How about the idiotic idea that they have to track down the raptors - Split up into groups of two. Didn't they ever watch any horror movies (Or at least an episode of Scooby Doo)? In short, this is one of the dumber movies out there. Miss it unless you want to groan your way through a movie.


This is probably one of the worst "wanna be a low budget hit films" to credit the dinosaur genre. The film is so predictable you could go away, cook yourself dinner, go answer the phone or whatever and when you're back you'll know exactly what has happened. The special effects are so poor you would have thought Lego bricks were used and the "super fast" dinosaurs were so tame that it makes a pet dog look like a super predator. The acting is over cooked. They try so hard, yet there just isn't enough character behind them to get into the characters and as for the scientist... Yeah okay we know exactly whats going to happen to the blonde chick in glasses. Stereotypical was created for films like this. If you want to watch this film, I suggest you aren't in as a serious mood as the cast and crew obviously were. And if you are really really into dinosaurs and know everything in the world about them, don't watch it, you might break the screen - the facts are that far off.


I really hope that Concorde/New Horizons wasn't trying to make a serious horror, or even action movie when they made Carnosaur 3. The movie is flat-out silly from start to finish. Even the humor in C3 is funny because it's bad. Definitely a high water mark in the 'So Bad it's Good' genre. If you enjoy the very worst of the worst, this is for you.


Carnosaur 3 is bad... awfully bad. Bad to the point where it is funny. How matter how much I try to convince myself, I just can't believe anyone in this world could find this entertaining for serious reasons. I mean, come on, even the cover is bad! OK, the special effects are absolutely ridiculous. Those "Carnosaurs" are really ridiculous. A scientist tells the soldiers that they move incredibly fast, yet when you see them run, they run at the speed of... an actor in a rubber suit trying to run as much as he can. And the explosions are funny(there is no other word to describe it). At the beginning, a bullet hits a Jeep AFTER a guys says "What was that?"... And the other explosions are also laughable. But the worst thing is the screenplay and the so-called story. You don't expect a good story(or, I don't think anyone renting this movie expects a good movie) but at least the story has to try to make sense. I mean, how hard is it to make a story about dinosaurs killing people at least coherent. Incredibly hard if you look at this. Oh, and if you think that it's easy to makes believable commandos as your characters, tell it to the writers of this awful, awful piece of crap. I mean, what sick human being would make cheap jokes after one of his buddies is dead? And they do lots of it. And if you think that a movie about dinosaurs killing soldiers can only be at least action-packed, WAKE UP!!! This movie is incredibly dull. The carnosaurs(who invented this lame name anyway?) attack(in boring action sequences where you don't see much happening). The soldiers think of how to beat them(in incredibly funny scenes where they try real hard to be serious but can't seem to convince even just one second). So, then, they attack the carnosaurs, but their idea doesn't work(another laughable action sequence). Back to planning(with a few lame jokes thrown in) in another ridiculous scene. And this goes on, and on, and on. And let's not forget the acting which is about as convincing as the special effects... and the story... Oh OK, this movie simply sucks from A to Z.


Okay, I remember watching the first one, and boy did it suck. After watching it, I just laughed it off and told myself, "oh boy, just another low budget B-movie. I'll never see a part 2 to this one." Then, about 1 1/2 years later, there came part two. It sucked even more. But, I just laughed it off again and said, "there's no way I'm ever gonna see a part 3 to this one." Then, about 1/2 a year later, part 3 came out. I was stupid enough to rent it and boy, I just snapped after watching it. God, I never actually realized how much movies can suck these days. Just save yourself $7.50 and don't rent the whole series. Trust me, it's worth every penny.


Carnosaur 3: Primal Species (1996) D: Jonathan Winfrey. Scott Valentine, Janet Gunn, Rick Dean, Anthony Peck, Rodger Halston, Terri J. Vaughn, Billy Burnette. Why even bother reviewing this movie? Another stupid dinosaur movie in which top secret military guys discover those lethal (and very fake-looking) prehistoric monsters running around killing people in gory ways. The original was bad enough, the sequel was even worse. This falls somewhere in between, though unrelated to either of the previous CARNOSAUR films. RATING: 2 out of 10. Rated R for graphic violence and gore, grisly images, and profanity.


I am Anthony Park, Glenn Park is my father. First off I want to say that the story behind this movie and the creation of the Amber Alert system is a good one. However the movie itself was poorly made and the acting was terrible. The major problem I had with the movie involved the second half with Nichole Timmons and father Glenn Park. The events surrounding that part of the story were not entirely correct. My father was suffering from psychological disorders at the time and picked up Nichole without any intent to harm her at all. He loved her like a daughter and was under the mindset that he was rescuing her from some sort of harm or neglect that he likely believed was coming from her mother who paid little attention to her over the 3 plus years that my father took care of her and summarily raised her so her mother could frolic about. The movie depicted my father in a manner that he was going to harm her in some way shape or form. The funny thing is that Nichole had spent many nights sometimes consecutively at my fathers place while Sharon would be working or doing whatever she was doing. The reason that my father was originally thought to be violent was because he had items that could be conceived to be weapons on his truck. My father was a landscaper. The items they deemed to be weapons were landscaping tools that he kept in his truck all the time for work. My recommendation is take this movie with a grain of salt, it is a good story and based on true events however the details of the movie (at least the Nichole Timmons - Glenn Park portion) are largely inaccurate and depict the failure of the director to discover the truth in telling the story. The funny thing is, that if the director would have interviewed any of Sharon's friends who knew the situation they would have stated exactly what I have posted here.


Elizabeth Rohm was the weakest actress of all the Law and Order ADA's and her acting is even worse here. Her attempts at a Texas accent are amateurish and unrealistic. Nor can she adequately summon the intense emotions needed to play the mother of a kidnapped child; at times while her daughter is missing she manages to sound only vaguely annoyed, as if she can't remember where she left her keys.

This is an important true story, so it's too bad that the awful acting of the lead actress distracts so much from the message. The rest of the cast is talented enough, but they just can't overcome Rohm's tendency to simply lay on a particularly thick imitation of a Southern drawl whenever actual acting is required.


The female lead was a terrible actress which made the whole movie mediocre. She was smiling too much when she first went in front of the cameras to talk about her daughter. This should have made the police suspect her. I would have been inconsolable in the identical situation. She seemed way calm for a mother who could not find her daughter. It was as if she did not want to even be in the movie. Jennifer Aniston would have played the part better. And it would have made a lot more money for such a controversial, important subject. Everyone else was excellent. I don't know where the lead actress is but I hope she got some acting lessons.


I am from the Dallas/Fort Worth area and lived in Arlington for a few years. This movie was way off as far as making it look like Arlington. I saw mountains in the background of one scene! Texas doesn't have mountains. I guess that happens when a movie that is supposed to be in Texas is filmed in Canada. The accents are also really bad. They should have gotten actors from Texas to play the parts. There a lot of aspiring actors from Texas out in Hollywood. The movie is really sad though, because it is a true story. I pray that the killer is found and convicted. The one good thing is that bc of her death, we now have the Amber Alert to help find missing children quickly after they are abducted.


I think that Elisabeth Rohm, though she may try hard, is not very good at all. I guess it was because of budget that she may have been the only one they could get for that price. I mainly watched it for the performance of Myron Natwick, whose work I know very well.

He was the most believable and without doubt the most compelling to watch. When he wasn't on the screen, the thing went dead. This was filmed in Vancouver. He gave me the creeps, but be assured that in real life he is a kind, funny compassionate man. He even said playing that role gave him the creeps.

I'll watch anything with him in it, but Elisabeth Rohm - never again. She was as exciting as lint on Law and Order. Maybe a very nice person, but no actress.


If there was a ZERO rating, I would give it to this movie. Today was the second time I tried to watch it and I still couldn't make it through from beginning to end. I can't believe the multiple stars given by others & can only assume they either know the actors or are a publicist in disguise! The acting is atrocious all around, the script is blah, the kid playing Nichole shows zero emotion even when she's being threatened. The "southern" accent from the actress playing Amber's mom is laughable - I'm from Georgia and have friends from Texas - believe me NOBODY talks like that! None of her emotions seemed real in any scene. The subject matter is very serious and deserves much better treatment.


Everyone involved (and the audience) should seek out "The Candidate" to see how good this movie could have been. What happened the South American story? What were Julie Christie and Kate Capshaw thinking to allow their roles to be cardboard cut-outs. Up to now I have liked every Gene Hackman performance and/or movie. He was either disinterested (which I can hardly believe) or dreadfully miscast. I have also liked and defended Richard Gere (and been vilified for it). But here he had no "power". He was never intimidating and only occasionally persuasive. All in all I was very disappointed. I really expected much more from this director and cast. If you can't find "The Candidate" watch "Wag the dog" again or even "Bulworth".


The main problem with "Power" is that it features way too may pointless characters and subplots that add absolutely nothing to the movie whatsoever. It gets boring after awhile, sitting around waiting through scenes that don't connect to find something that drives the movie forward. You could probably pass it all off as character development, but all of them are either recycled from earlier scenes in the movie, or are just simply to flat and uninteresting. Lumet never gives enough time to let any of the supporting cast blossom. He should have cut a few of the characters (hackman, the wife) and concentrated harder on others (Billings). It could have been a great, hard political thriller instead of a jumbled mess that loses any message in a sea of bad writing and acting, a fact that amazed me considering the cast. Even Gene Hackman performance wasn't up to par. Denzel Washington is the only real actor of note here. Gere and the others have all done much better performances elsewhere.

Sidney Lumet needs to go back to the fierce one man shows he did in the seventies (i.e, Serpico) and stop trying to recapture his success with "12 Angry Men" and "Fail Safe". It hasn't worked yet Sidney, and it most likely never will. leave the ensemble dramas to Altman.

3/10

* / * * * *


If the only sex you've ever had is with a farm animal, then the tag line for this movie is probably still misleading.

This is by far one of the most boring movies I've had the pleasure to try and watch lately. I found the DVD lying around at my friend's house, and I made the sad mistake of not burning it.

I am unable to tell any details without spoiling the movie because there are only about 5 details to this movie. Just try to imagine someone making a movie about things on c-span only the fictional movie is 10 times less interesting than the most boring debate on c-span.

I think there is a conspiracy somewhere in this movie, but I was unable to tell exactly what it was after I gouched my eyeballs out and threw them at Richard Gere.


When anti-bush jokes get really easy to do, a show like this had better make sure it has something extra. When that something extra is kid versions of political figures making jokes about the future they don't have yet, it's just plain nonsense. Dick Cheney and George Bush are done well but Dick Cheney mutters mostly. There's also Condoleeza Rice who has a crush on Bush for some reason and Donald Rumsfeld who isn't really that similar to Donald Rumsfeld at all. The democratic characters rarely give their names so it's a mystery as to who could be who aside from Barack Obama and Hilary Clinton.

The episodes have coherent stories but that's not nearly enough to keep this from sinking.


I am marking this as a "spoiler" only because of some of my comments of the show's content, not to the content itself.

As I read the comments it is apparent that those Republicans somehow tolerate the show, but disdain it, while the Democrats seems to relish in its so called truthfulness. One reader even (so it seems) actually indicates that he believes these events did or could have happened when Bush was in grade school.

But as to the content as I see it, trying to be neutral, is that the group that made this series must actually be really Bush haters. In the Episode that I saw last, s02e03, it showed that the program must have been put together long before McCain became the front runner for the nomination; because, the other former front runners are all featured.

Another thing that caught my attention, was the use of add in closets. I thought that the series must have been made in Europe of for sure not in the U.S.A., because I know of no home the U.S.A. that does not have built in closets, and most likely in the homes of the artists.

As I watch the show, yes I do get caught up in it, I am amazed to see what must be a terrific desire of the writers to do what they can to embarrass our President. Sure there are problems as most American will agree, but that is no reason to be so hateful in public displays seen around the world. Perhaps the trend has now been set by this show and network, so that IF Obama or Hillary got in, would they continue to produce and air the same sort of "humor" about them?

Just one more comment on a commentator's remarks. IF there had been some sort of change in the election back in 2000, according to that writer, he was so sure that there would be a completely different acceptable president. Wow, wishful thinking on his part. As far as 911 events, I do believe that it was set in motion back when Clinton was president, and I can't see how if Gore was president anything would be much different.


Honestly, my expectations for Little Bush were low. I was expecting a little cartoon series with lots of fun (but rehashed and overdone) Bush jokes. Apparently I should have lowered my expectations even more.

The writing was absolutely pathetic. Aside from the Cheney-Chicken-Eating joke, and some giggly-little swipes, it was really boring and unfunny.

The animation was about as sophisticated as a thirteen-year old's Flash Project. It's disgraceful that they used Macromedia's product for this, because it's capable of so much more.

I don't like Bush that much, and I enjoy a Bush-joke as much as the next guy, but this was just a half-hour swipe at the President with several painfully un-funny moments. Trey Parker and Matt Stone did so much more with That's My Bush.

Do yourself a favor, skip "Lil' Bush" and go buy a copy of the short-lived comedy "That's My Bush". You'll thank me.


Abysmal with a capital "A". This has got to be one of, if not THE, unfunniest show on TV right now. I'm about as anti-bush as it gets, but this show doesn't even get a chuckle out of me. What you think of Bush as a president has absolutely NOTHING to do with whether or not you'll like this piece of crap show. The "jokes" are not funny at all. For example, in a scene when lil bush has his underwear on his head: "Welcome to camp al-qa-eeda!". There is NOTHING funny about that. Is it even supposed to be joke? The commercials that were shown in the weeks leading up to the show, hyping it up, were funnier than the show itself, and that's just sad. Hopefully this does not even get considered for a second season. It shouldn't even have had a first.


This show is not clever. That's basically what it boils down to. The "original humor" that these writers try to pull off to avoid completely biting off the rest of the worlds bush bashing is just unfunny. In another comment, someone quotes a couple hilarious lines. The standout for me was George H.W. Bush telling the kids they're not supposed to watch any TV besides Fox News. Wow. I thought the episodes I saw were bad. The fact that this line is a high point for the series is pathetic.

My problem with drivel like this sad excuse for political satire is that these folks are getting a second season. I'm a liberal republican and I know Bush hasn't been a good president. We all do. But that's no excuse for putting out this utterly poopie waste of time. I place these writers on the same level as the geniuses behind 'Meet the Spartans'. Their formula, bite off as many already unfunny topical jokes as you can and throw in even worse original material to actually be able to give yourself writing credit.

Again, just plain bad. Unfunny, and it just makes me more and more unhappy that crap like this is renewed, but amazing and original shows like Arrested Development are canned after 3 solid seasons. Please don't watch this crap, unless you're one of those green blooded liberal hippies who think any sentence with the words Bush and dumb is comedic gold.

Oh, and the voice of Bush sucks. All he does is slightly emulate a Texan accent, and exhale really hard at the end of his sentences. At least South Park admits the voices aren't accurate. If you want funny political satire, watch Daily Show/Colbert. Or look for any political sketches on Robot Chicken, which is fun to watch, since the stop motion action figure animation is EXTREMELY well done. Look for the George Bush as a Jedi bit on youtube. Priceless


I want to start by stating I am a republican, even though I don't agree with a lot of the things bush has done in office. And I love the daily show and Colbert report. They have to be two of my favorite shows on TV. I enjoy the bush jokes on Conan, Letterman, Leno, because I admit that W is not the smartest guy to ever walk the earth(I do believe he's not the dumbest either.) But it comes to a point when enough is enough and it's not really that funny anymore. I see where it can be funny and it is(hey he's making fun of our authority figure he's hilarious.). Comedy central though is just trying to hard to poke fun at him. I mean maybe one special episode, but an entire series is just dumb. It seems CC is just saying the same bush jokes that we've heard WAY to many times. I really cannot see this show going past 1 season.


Lil Bush is a 30 minute cartoon show comprised of 2 15 minutes episodes shown on Comedy Central. It takes place in a fictional, cartoonish Washington D.C., and centers around the satirical, childish representations of George W. Bush, Condoleeza Rice, Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheyney. Other politicians are also satirized in the same manner, and act as minor characters.

The pilot of little Bush, much to this commentator's expectations, proved to be a rather shallow and esoteric production, which barely delivers on its featured promise: a satirical look at the current presidential administration. While one must admit that premise of the show does have SOME merit, even though it would be hard to imagine a show based almost completely of the denigration of a single political persona would survive to continue to produce episodes after his term of office expired, execution that can only be described as sloppy at best, and downright awful at worst, has marred what little potential the show had.

Lil Bush, which may be technically classified as "satire", tends to disregard its actual use of the particular tool of comedy in order to lambaste its targets in exceptionally vulgar (but not particularly original, entertaining, or funny) ways. The show's consistently weak writing often consists of little more than recording Bush/Cheney jokes heard elsewhere ad nauseam and placing them all in a single 30 minute block of television. As such, most of the jokes that presented by the writers were shameless clichés, some of which that been in public circulation for more than 6 years already. Comparing the Vice President to Darth Vader, for example, may have been funny in the first 300 times one has heard it on the Daily Show/Colbert Report/Letterman/Conan O'Brien/Leno monologue/any late-night-talk-show-ever, but it is not funny here. As if that were not enough, the show's plots seem to exist simply as a means to advance the same old, tiresome Bush jokes that the writers have made the center of the program.

In the show's defense, when the writers dare to write in a truly original joke (which seems to be a rarity) it is often somewhat humorous. If the show were to expand its depth somewhat, and place its characters into new situations, exotic situations, rather than the same old mistakes and "quagmires" perpetuated by the Bush administration, therefore not having to rely on the same old Bush jokes over and over again, the show might be considered somewhat tolerable, and possibly even innovative.

Ultimately, it is difficult to ascertain which shortcoming causes the Lil Bush series the most damage; its clear lack of originality and weak writing quality, or its painfully narrow minded ambitions. It is reasonable to expect that Lil Bush will be able to maintain a small base of left wing fans, that is, if they are able to endure the exceptionally poor writing; so long as the program continues to lampoon the Bush administration thoroughly. Even so, the majority of viewers will soon recognize the program for what it really is, a weak and pointlessly vulgar attempt at satire, and tune out in search of something more intellectually stimulation; The Price is Right, perhaps.


I just finished watching this film and WOW was that bad. Actually the only thing that kept me watching was that it was SO MONUMENTALLY bad it was kind of entertaining. The action of the characters is hilarious, from the hyper-dramatic way they fall to gunfire, to their incredibly bad acting (were the bad guys all just pulled off the street, or were they actually actors?), to incredibly bad delivery of lines, to their inexplicable actions (if you are going to try and shoot someone through a doorway as they enter, obviously the thing to do is shoot directly at the doorknob!!). This film must break some record for worst written and delivered lines.

The camera work was also really bad - you can hardly see what's going on in the fight scenes due to switching camera angles and shakiness.

I would have voted "1" except that I do like Chiba and sidekick Sue Shihomi, and I was entertained by a couple of scenes: 1) breaking of a villain's arm so the bone pops out of the skin (that's gotta hurt) 2) a drug kingpin eating a brown-furred animal (a monkey??) by hacking away at the carcass with a meat cleaver 3) Sonny Chiba's performing some impromptu eye surgery on a guy with his fingers.

I am actually a big fan of Sonny Chiba but this one is really not worth anyone's time. I've seen about 7 or 8 of his films and have come to the conclusion that the only ones worth watching (and they are great!) are the Street Fighter series, and The Killing Machine. I've also heard the Executioner and Golgo 13 are good. I recommend sticking to those ones.


This is easily one of the worst martial arts films I've ever seen, and that's saying something. The chant of viva Chiba, viva Chiba is heard at the title, soon you will be chanting to yourself stupid, stupid. The basic story is that the mafia is running drugs into Japan and one man vowels to stop them, of course that's our man Sonny Chiba. The Karate master offers up his service to anyone who can provide information on the drug lords. A woman comes forward and he becomes the bodyguard, but what are her true intentions? Let me say at this point who cares? Soon we are treated to or tortured by a series of poorly choreographed fights and a lame storyline that becomes more and more laughable at every moment. Sonny eventually wipes out the bad guys with his karate skills, end of story. Oh yeah the woman was corrupt too. Congratulations you may have just watched the funniest film ever.

As stated already this is one of the worst martial arts films I have ever seen. What makes it semi watchable is to see how badly made a film can be. Some have already mentioned the infamous American intro put into the film. That's probably the most entertaining part of the film and it's beyond funny. I would agree its worth watching just to see how lame the 70's karate scene was at the time. Watch as Aaron Banks leaves a guy hanging by his nuts then flips a fat student (bad editing) punching him in the throat. But everything is badly done in this film. Terrible unbelievable fights, fake I mean fake blood, bad acting, dubbing, wardrobe, and let's not forget the story. One man to take out an entire drug problem in a country? I bet. Fight after fight is laughable. This was the 70's when people still believed karate was effective in a fight, but Chiba brings it to new levels with some of the nonsense put out in this movie. Let's see he kicks a gun in half, kicks a guy so hard what looks like his dentures fall out and of course chopping the bottle scene, give me a break. Not to mention the fact that it's very hard to tell what happens in the fights because it's filmed so poorly. One part that was amusing was when he broke the guys arm through the door giving him a compound fracture. OK. As the action goes on we are treated to gobs of blood, really fake blood. Too say it looked poorly made is and understatement. The acting is totally non existent in this film. I don't expect much from a film of this caliber anyway as long as the action is good, but it wasn't and as expected the dubbing is extremely poor. Was it my imagination or did they dub the Asian go go dancer with a black accent? As expected from a 70's wardrobe you'll be in stitches laughing at some of the trends and nasty women put forth for the gratuitous nudity that comes with these flicks. Also why would the mafia be so obvious and all where black trench coats and hats all the time? Don't try and hide it now. The characters were stupid as well. The pimp club owner's one of whom is decked out in a Japanese pimp suit and the other who has a taste for bores head looks like fat hippie. Also one last thing that bothered me throughout the film was the awful music with some woman whaling. It was very annoying.

Overall this is a terrible film by both martial arts standards and good movie making. That doesn't mean that it's not entertaining. With a film made so poorly it's hard not to laugh through most of this film, if you can stomach it. This was an old favorite watch with my best friend. If it was purely bad I would give one star, but the laughs it delivers bumps it up. 4 out 10.


After watching "The Bodyguard" last night, I felt compelled to write a review of it.

This could have been a pretty decent movie had it not been for the awful camera-work. It was beyond annoying. The angles were all wrong, it was impossible to see anything, especially during the fight sequences. The closeups were even horrible.

The story has Sonny Chiba hiring himself out as a bodyguard to anyone willing to lead him to the top of a drug ring. He is approached by Judy Lee, who is never quite straight with Chiba. Lee's involvement in the drug ring is deeper than Chiba thought, as the Mob and another gang of thugs are after her.

The story was decent, and despite horrible dubbing, this could have been a good movie. Given better direction and editing, I'm sure this would have been a classic Kung Foo movie. As it is, it's more like another cheesy 70's action movie.

Note: The opening sequence has a quote familiar to "Pulp Fiction" fans, and then continues to a karate school in Times Square that is in no way related to the rest of the movie.

Rating: 4 out of 10


I liked Chiba in Street Fighter, and I figured hey, no matter how stupid this movie will be, I'll at least get to see him kick some ass, right? Wrong. This is a dull, dreary mess of pointless talking, half-assed scriptwriting and meaningless scheming. There are few action scenes of any kind, even fewer martial arts scenes, and the few that are are shot and edited so poorly that you can't even make out what in the world is going on. The dub is also atrocious, and perhaps the idiocy that is this movie is best illustrated by the fact that it supposedly features the Italian Mafia... EXCEPT THEY'RE ALL Japanese! Avoid like the plague--you would see better martial arts by looking through the window of your local preschool karate class for five minutes.


Avoid the USA version. It is with added US footage and the worst dubbing you've ever heard probably done by New York amateurs. The dubbing is so bad that it sounds like Mystery Science Theater 3000. I think a black guy from the Bronx does Chiba's voice. I couldn't watch the entire film it was that bad. Instead of this Americanized version watch Chiba's other greats like The Streetfighter or Karate Warriors.


The best thing you can say about this movie is that if you are a fan of Sonny Chiba, this movie gives you lots of him. Chiba makes speeches; Chiba poses; Chiba sneers; Chiba glares at the camera; Chiba punches and kicks the living sushi out of a whole bunch of bad guys; Chiba sits around on couches and chairs and looks thoughtful/pensive; Chiba drives his car...

I enjoy Chiba as an actor and a martial artist...but even for a Chiba fan, this movie may have a little too much Sonny Chiba. It's obviously something of a vanity vehicle for him. And no, I wouldn't put "Street Fighter" in the same category, because in "SF" he plays a ruthless, amoral anti-hero and he shares the camera with an intriguing cast of friends and foes. Here, he's front and center almost all the time, and he tries to be Batman, Captain America and Bruce Lee rolled into one. Toshiro Mifune and Chow Yun Fat couldn't pull this off for the length of an entire feature film, and Sonny just kind of wears out his welcome. At least he could have changed out of his suit once in a while.

The movie is further messed up by an entirely gratuitous and badly done introductory sequence (apparently tacked on to the front of the film for the American version) and a goofy cheer "("Viva!! Chiba!! Viva!! Chiba!!) that starts things on the wrong foot. There is some astoundingly amateurish and inappropriate dubbing - Sonny (or his usual English stand-in) apparently couldn't be bothered to do the vocals for the American version, so they got some poor dope with an entirely different and smoother voice and dialect that is quite jarring coming from the face we all know and love from "Street Fighter".

Even with all those flaws and the overexposure, this could still be a minor classic, but the camera work and the fight scenes are hopelessly cheesy. I'm willing to believe that Karate actually works if someone as amazing as Chiba's character is supposed to be does it, but the director and cameraman hedged their bets by chopping and editing fight scenes with a weed whacker so you can't really see what's going on most of the time. It's not all bad: there are some decent shots and compositions, and there's at least one memorable and nightmarish moment when the bad guys appear in the client's bedroom in a genuinely inventive way.

And as for the actual plot...forget it. For a "bodyguard", Chiba's character is something of an idiot. The screenplay depends on his making mistakes and oversights that repeatedly place him (and his "client") in perilous situations so he can fight his way out of them, and after 30 minutes, it strains even the most credulous judgment to think that this guy is supposed to be any good. (Also, If his character was really out to destroy the Japanese drug trade, he'd have taken his client by her neck 10 minutes into the screenplay and shaken her until her teeth chattered like a castanet until she spilled her little secrets...and a whole lot of pointless death and conflict would have been avoided.)

Still, as a whole this movie is a long way from the bottom of the barrel. It's still Sonny Chiba, and he's still fun to watch. I paid a buck to get this off the bargain DVD rack at a local mega mart, and I feel it was worth watching once.


The first few minutes of "The Bodyguard" do have a campy charm: it opens with crawling text from the Bible (the part that Samuel Jackson recites to his soon-to-be victims in "Pulp Fiction"), continues with two karate school teachers in New York arguing about the eternal question of mankind (who is better? Sonny Chiba or Bruce Lee?), and then Chiba appears, playing himself; he immediately stops a plane hijacking and breaks a bottle in two with his bare hand. Unfortunately, any entertainment value, intentional or unintentional, soon gets crushed by the disjointed story, the lack of action for long periods of time, and the poor quality of any present action. To keep it simple, here's why "The Bodyguard" is an unbearable movie to watch:

1) You don't know what's going on.

2) There are barely any fights.

3) The fights that are there, are short and terribly filmed.

Sonny Chiba is cool. Judy Lee is gorgeous, her face is glorious. It's only for them that I give "The Bodyguard" a 2nd star out of 10. This movie makes 87 minutes feel like 5 hours.


Before I begin, you need to know that I am a huge fan of many of Sonny Chiba's films. His biographical series of the life of his master, Mas Oyama, were amazing and among the best martial arts films ever made, as were most of his Street Fighter films. The action was practically non-stop and with the possible exception of Bruce Lee (depending on who you ask), he was the greatest martial arts practitioner on film during the 1970s. Because they are so good, I've seen at least 15 of his films and recently bought some more (which I am in the process of watching).

Unfortunately, despite my love of these films, I am NOT a mind-numbed zombie who worships the man to such a degree that I rate EVERY film a 10. There are a few reviews like this here on IMDb and I truly think that anyone giving this film a 10 should be ignored because this is such a bad film from a technical standpoint and isn't even close to the being Chiba's best work. A score of 10 isn't a real rating--it's some zombie fan trying to make a statement about Chiba, not this film! As I said, technically this film is awful. Some of this was the result of my seeing the American dubbed version, with its irrelevant prologue and bad dubbing. But most of the problem would still exist with the original Japanese print. The camera-work is simply atrocious--like it was done by chimps (smart chimps, but still chimps nonetheless). Often, much of the fast martial arts action is missed because the camera is so slow or the tops of the actors heads are clipped off due to the shoddiness of production. And, again and again, the camera pans in and out like it is a new toy being used by an idiot plus the editing is beyond wretched--with cuts being done haphazardly and confusingly.

I don't know whether the musical score is original or not--but it was also very, very bad. Sort of like acid rock of 1970 blended poorly with Ennio Morricone's "Spaghetti Western" music--it was annoying, distracting and just plain silly.

As for the martial arts action, I think that having chimps do the choreography would have improved things a bit. Instead of the great fight scenes you'd look forward to in a Chiba film, the fights are too brief and often missed by the camera!! So what you are left with is the story...and this MIGHT just be the worst part of the film! It's supposed to be an anti-drug film starring Sonny Chiba as....Sonny Chiba! And when the film begins, he vows to destroy the drug trade in Japan. But, the Mafia (complete with not a single member who looks Italian, but who are ALL Japanese) vows to stop Chiba. And, when a lady comes to Chiba with promises to give him information about how to destroy the drug trade, he agrees to help her and risk his life with no conditions--even though she's NEVER forthright about telling him what she knows! In fact, later it turns out she is just trying to use Chiba to protect her while she herself sells a huge briefcase full of cocaine--and he CONTINUES trying to protect her!! This makes no sense at all and throughout much of the film it looks as if they just shot the film without a script--such as when they went into the bars and brothels and had Chiba walking about as if he was drunk.

So if it was THAT bad, why still does it merit a 3? Well, first, there are many more horrid marital arts films (such as many of those from Hong Kong in the 1970s)--including one with guys dressed up in gorilla suits doing kung fu and their handlers with 3 foot long tongues they used for fighting (now THAT'S bad). Second, while the action is very bad compared to other Sonny Chiba films, compared to its contemporaries, it's not that bad. Still, you could easily do a lot better than this horrid little film.

By the way, if you are wondering if this is the worst Sonny Chiba film, it certainly is not! In one of his first films, INVASION OF THE NEPTUNE MEN, Chiba plays a leotard-wearing super-hero who battles pointy-headed invaders from the planet Neptune. It's so bad that it rivals PLAN 9 FROM OUTER SPACE and THEY SAVED HITLER'S BRAIN for awfulness.

A final note to parents--Like most of Sonny Chiba's films, this one is very violent and has its share of boobies. DON'T let little kids watch this no matter how much they beg! Make them wait until they are older before you let them watch wretched rated-R martial arts films!


Most action films are crass of Hindi cinema, especially of Sunny and his family

The film is typical Sunny type with bashes, big dialogues and melodrama

The film also has typical Rajiv Rai ingredients of many henchmen and a weird villain

The starting is okay and then the shift to Kenya is good but then the film goes on and on

The sequence of events move at a slow pace and nothing that great happens

They are many stupid scenes like the Kenya policemen are shown like jokers especially Sharat

The climax too is prolonged

Rajiv Rai does an okay job Music is okay, only 1 song works and that is the last TOOFAN Camera-work is good

Sunny Deol is as usual, Chunky acts like a monkey while his serious scenes are laughable, Naseer is alright heroines are pure wood Amrish Puri is not even half as scary as he was in TRIDEV the rest are okay


I watched this movie on march 21 this year.Must say disappointment.But much better than "Tridev".Plot is hackneyed.Tells about Prabhat who lives with his father,Wife and his little brother.The movie opens when he saves a bride.Anyway.Azghar Jhurhad makes a plot to kill his young brother.He makes a plan by sending few man.They come to a school pretended to be Prabhats friends.Kill that kid.His father throws him out of the house.Then later comes back.He and Aakash go to Kenya to find him.Sunny gives a good performance,Chunky was annoying at best,Naseerdun is wasted.Divya did good,Sonam was wasted,Jyotsna was wasted but looked cute.The kid which played Sunnys brother in the movie was cute.Too sad he had to get his character killed.The girl was cute but was annoying.The other kid did good.Alok did good.Kiran was adequate.Amrish and Gulshan did good.The cinematography is excellent in both India and Kenya.Script is weak but has a few good dialogs.Also drags .The movie.The music was alright.I only liked one song"Saat Samundar" the lyrics of that song was good.The other songs were forgettable.Don't watch this. Rating-3/10


Imagine that in adapting a James Bond novel into a movie, the filmmakers eliminated all the action and suspense in order to make it kid-friendly. Or if a television producer told Chris Rock he couldn't cuss so that his specials could be rated PG. In the same way, the director of the movie "Something Wicked This Way Comes" took out the excitement and gore in favor of melodrama for younger audiences. This created a monotonous plot without the complications of the book. In trying to make the story of "Something Wicked This Way Comes" easier for children to follow, the filmmakers eliminated the theme of good and evil both existing in everyone, and good always prevailing over evil. This is apparent in Will's character transformation, Charles Halloway's rescue of Jim, and the carnival's defeat.

Will's transformation into a more adventurous boy has been muted in the movie. The scene in which the Dust Witch visits Will's house in a balloon has been cut from the film. Instead, a green mist follows Jim and Will home and gives them the same bad dream about the Witch and her spiders. The balloon attack shows us that Will has begun to conquer his fear of doing things on his own. He gets on top of a neighbor's roof and tears the balloon with a bow, defeating the Witch. "Sorry, Dad, he thought, and sat up, smiling. This time it's me out, alone," Will decides as he prepares to face her (147.) Removing this scene from the movie prevents us from understanding that Will is becoming more adventuresome. The film shows us many examples of Will being afraid to follow Jim, but never growing curious like his friend. In the book, Will has both a good, quiet side and an "evil," daring side like his Jim. In the movie, each boy only has one mode of thought, which destroys Bradbury's theme of both good and evil being present in each person.

In the book, Will saves Jim because of their friendship, but, in the movie, Charles Halloway saves Jim to repay Jim's father. Will pulls Jim off the carousel in Bradbury's novel because he doesn't want his best friend to grow up without him. It is the good in Will, the fact that he cares about his friend, that saves Jim from the evil curse of the carnival. On the carousel, Jim "gestured his other hand free to trail on the wind, the one part of him, the small, white, separate part that still remembered their friendship" (269.) This shows that there was good left inside of Jim, which has the potential to still defeat evil. But when Charles Halloway saves Jim in the movie, he does it to repay the debt he owes Jim's father, who saved Will when he was a little boy. By changing the motivation for saving Jim, the filmmakers have ruined Bradbury's original idea that it takes good to win against evil.

In the end of the movie, the carnival is defeated by a tornado and lightning instead of smiles and laughter. When the book ends, Mr. Dark turns himself into a little boy and Charles Halloway smiles and laughs at him so much that he can't stand it and evaporates. In Bradbury's world, evil people feed off fear and can only be defeated by happiness and love. His message is that good will always prevail over evil, but only if that goodness is expressed outwardly. "Good to evil seems evil," says Charles Halloway as he holds the dying Mr. Dark. "So I will do only good to you, Jed. I'll simply hold you and watch you poison yourself" (275.) In the movie, Mr. Dark is the only one left on the carousel when lightning hits it, and he dies. By eliminating the weapon of laughter and smiles, the filmmakers imply that bad weather is the most effective way to defeat evil, as if lightning only strikes those who are bad. This takes away the major theme of Bradbury's book, which is that doing "good" toward others wards off evil.

Good may always triumph over evil, but trying to make movies more kid-friendly will always force filmmakers to leave out some of the themes from the books they are based on. In the movie, "Something Wicked This Way Comes," Will does not transform, Will's friendship does not save Jim, and smiles and laughter do not defeat the carnival. As a result, the filmmakers have left out too many of Bradbury's main points. The process of adapting a book to a movie too often ruins the world the author has established. In the case of this story, Bradbury's frightening world of opposing forces of good and evil has been reduced to a tamer, simpler version of itself.