I read somewhere where this film was supposed to be a remake of the 1949 film noir, "Criss Cross." I found the latter to be disappointing but it was still better than this film.

This movie is a "neo-noir" since it's modern-day and it's in color, two things that purists would make it be disqualified for film noir status.

The biggest negative to it, however, wasn't the cinematography (that was fine) but the muddled storyline. Hey, some of '40s Dashiell Hammett stories were similar but I didn't care for some of those either. The filmmakers here did not help the situation by placing flashbacks into the story what seemed like every three minutes. No wonder it was the keep up with this story. It was ridiculous! What happens is that by the 45-minute mark, their is so much confusion nobody cares anymore. I know I didn't.


There aren't many good things to say at all about Underneath, Soderbergh's untrue endeavor into neo-noir. Soderbergh remakes Robert Siodmak's decent noir Criss-Cross faithfully, not altering the plot very much at all, however the adaptation drains it of every ounce of its state-of-the-art film noir atmosphere, giving it the same story set in the very least appealing places, lifestyles and anachronisms. Soderbergh, who would later make wonderful crime films like Out of Sight and the Ocean's series with great style and atmosphere, takes the dangerously obvious route to modernization by renovating the story with the ugliest, dullest and flattest fashions of the early 1990s. Nightclubs have terrible, revoltingly dressed garage bands, Peter Gallagher's uninteresting version of Burt Lancaster's anti-hero is left by his femme fatale girlfriend for compulsively buying cinematically lifeless modern appliances like stereos, TVs, and other up to date pieces of equipment that suck the reaction out of the film.

It could've been more entertaining and less boring had it a few saving graces like a good score, more flesh to its characters, more than just William Fichtner giving performances that aren't wooden, a crisper pace. Unfortunately, Underneath has none of these things. Soderbergh, a fine director, does not utilize his dry detachment to the benefit of his film this time. That disposition works wonderfully when he's helming a crime movie with more tongue in its cheek like the George Clooney pictures previously mentioned, or a social or character drama like Traffic or sex, lies and videotape. With a movie like Underneath, it intensifies the boredom experienced by the viewer.


When i got this movie free from my job, along with three other similar movies.. I watched then with very low expectations. Now this movie isn't bad per se. You get what you pay for. It is a tale of love, betrayal, lies, sex, scandal, everything you want in a movie. Definitely not a Hollywood blockbuster, but for cheap thrills it is not that bad. I would probably never watch this movie again. In a nutshell this is the kind of movie that you would see either very late at night on a local television station that is just wanting to take up some time, or you would see it on a Sunday afternoon on a local television station that is trying to take up some time. Despite the bad acting, cliché lines, and sub par camera work. I didn't have the desire to turn off the movie and pretend like it never popped into my DVD player. The story has been done many times in many movies. This one is no different, no better, no worse.

Just your average movie.


Ben Masters,(Kyd Thomas),"Dream Lover",'86 plays a sort of Mike Hammer character, a private eye who does any old job for a buck and never misses out on all the sexy curves of good looking gals. Kyd makes one big mistake when he stops Morgan Fairchild,(Laura Cassidy/Eva Bomberg),"Arizona Summer",'73 from getting beaten up and raped. Kyd takes Laura home to his pad and when he wakes up, she is out on his patio eating his eggs and orange juice and making herself right at home. By the way, Kyd sleep in his bed and Laura slept on the couch for this particular scene. Laura is mixed up with all kinds of hoods and there are some hot scenes between Kyd and Laura. All said and done, this is a lousy picture and I purchased the DVD for only $1.50 and I really got ripped OFF !


Manipulative drama about a glamorous model (Margaux Hemingway) who is raped by a geeky but unbalanced musician (Chris Sarandon) – to whom she had been introduced by her younger sister (played by real-life sibling Mariel), whose music teacher he is. While the central courtroom action holds the attention – thanks largely to a commanding performance by Anne Bancroft as Hemingway’s lawyer – the film is too often merely glossy, but also dramatically unconvincing: the jury ostensibly takes the musician’s side because a) the girl invited assault due to the sensuous nature of her profession and b) she was offering no resistance to her presumed aggressor when her sister arrived at the apartment and inadvertently saw the couple in bed together. What the f***?!; she was clearly tied up – what resistance could she realistically offer?

The second half of the film – involving Sarandon’s rape of the sister, which curiously anticipates IRREVERSIBLE (2002) by occurring in a tunnel – is rather contrived: Mariel’s character should have known better than to trust Sarandon after what he did to her sister, but Margaux herself foolishly reprises the line of work which had indirectly led to her humiliating experience almost immediately! The climax – in which Sarandon gets his just desserts, with Margaux turning suddenly into a fearless and resourceful vigilante – is, however, a crowd-pleaser in the style of DEATH WISH (1974); incidentally, ubiquitous Italian movie mogul Dino De Laurentiis was behind both films.

It’s worth noting how the two Hemingway sisters’ lives took wildly different turns (this was the film debut of both): Margaux’s career never took off (despite her undeniable good looks and commendable participation here) – while Mariel would soon receive an Oscar nomination for Woody Allen’s MANHATTAN (1979) and, interestingly, would herself play a glamorous victim of raging violence when essaying the role of real-life “Playboy” centerfold Dorothy Stratten in Bob Fosse’s STAR 80 (1983). With the added pressure of a couple of failed marriages, Margaux took refuge in alcohol and would eventually die of a drug overdose in 1996; chillingly, the Hemingway family had a history of suicides – notably the sisters’ grandfather, celebrated author Ernest, who died of a self-inflicted gunshot wound in 1961.


After seeing a heavily censored version of this movie on television years ago, I was curious to see the unedited version. I was surprised that it was more believable and well acted than I remembered, but one thing really stood out. I think other reviewers have mentioned this also, namely, what exactly is the nature and motivation of the Chris Sarandon character? Has he raped other victims before? Is he completely psychotic or an "average" sociopath? How did he expect to get away with his attack on the younger sister? Is this character at all credible, or is it just a matter of more background being necessary? He seems almost simultaneously to be an uncomfortably believable character, and too crazy to actually be able to hold on to a teaching job that puts him in contact with young, vulnerable girls. This seems to to be the biggest complaint of viewers in general. It has nothing to do with his performance, which is terrifyingly convincing.The movie occupies an uneasy position between sheer exploitation and a half way serious treatment of the subject, without quite settling into either mode. Not the worst movie ever made, but not all that good, either.


Model Chris McCormack (Margaux Hemingway) is brutally raped by a teacher (Chris Sarandon) of her sister Kathy (Mariel Hemingway). He is brought to trial but goes totally free. He then rapes Kathy!

Objectionable and sick rape film. This movie was advertised as an important drama dealing with rape. What it is is a badly written and (for the most part) badly acted drama. It purports to be sympathetic to the victim of the rape but shoves the scene in our face. To be totally honest however, Hemingway's acting is so bad in that sequence that it loses any real impact it might have had. The trial scenes were boring and predictable. And the movie just went too far when 15 year old Mariel is raped (thankfully that wasn't shown). I do admit though that it did lead to a great ending when Margaux grabs a gun and shoots Sarandon dead. But seriously--having a young girl raped is just revolting.

Acting doesn't help. For instance, Margaux was no actress. She was certainly a beautiful woman (and an actual model I believe) but her acting left a lot to be desired. It lessens the film. Mariel was just OK but this was one of her first films. Sarandon does what he can as the rapist. He wasn't bad but the terrible script worked against him.

I do remember hearing that at a screening of this back in 1976 some women stood up and cheered when Sarandon was killed so maybe this works for some people. I found this boring, simplistic and REALLY sick. A 1 all the way.


**WARNING: POSSIBLE SPOILER**

If you can get by the extremely unpleasant subject matter, this film does offer a heaping helping of outrageously campy melodrama. Surprisingly enough, this movie has been copied and ripped-off several times over the years, although it's hard to fathom ANY filmmaker being inspired by this trashy drama. Neither one of the Hemingway women can act here (although Mariel HAS improved over the years), Anne Bancroft offers the only touch of class as a prosecuting attorney, and Chris Sarandon is by turns pathetic and unintentionally hilarious as the smirking, smarmy bad guy of the piece.

Veteran director Lamont Johnson can't make a silk purse out of this sow's ear of a script, which is stuffed to bursting with howlingly bad dialogue and outlandish situations. For example, the final sequence, where Margaux grabs her shotgun and chases Sarandon down after his latest shocking act is meant to be exciting but elicits hearty chuckles instead. Add a notoriously shrill and spacy musical score by Michel Polnareff and you have a true guilty pleasure, even though you're likely to feel grubby and needing a hot shower after viewing it. Don't say you weren't warned.


Lipstick is another glossy movie failure.I am trying to think of one good thing that I could say about the movie, and I am having trouble coming up with something.I guess the red dress that Margaux Hemingway was wearing in the end of the movie was the best part.The writing and the script was not the worst that I have ever encountered,but it could have been a lot better. Lipstick was very pleasing to the eye to view.The sets were very glossy and nice to look at.The cast was okay. I felt like Anne Bancroft's character was the only feasible character in the entire movie.It was sad to see Chris Sarandon waste his time on this one.


It is hard to make an unbiased judgment on a film like this that had such an impact on me at such a young age. This is with out a doubt the worst kind of exploitation film. I was unfortunate enough to see this film for the first time in my youth, Iwill never forget it. I thought it was the most horrible movie ever made. I then saw it again earlier this year and was once again horrified.

I am not a zealot or one to say what others should and should not see but I did take great offense to the way in which something as horrible as rape was dealt with in this movie. I love lowbrow cinema but this is just plain nasty. Rent some Rus Myer instead.


This film is so ridiculously idiot that you may actually laugh at it. But no, even this is too much for this lost meters of celluloid. I found it as an offer in a magazine and that's why I've seen it. I regret the time I lost to see this. 1 out of 10 (because they don't have a lower grade).


If you haven't seen this, it's terrible. It is pure trash. I saw this about 17 years ago, and I'm still screwed up from it.


While some performances were good-Victoria Rowell, Adrienne Barbeau, and the two Italian girlfriends come to mind-the story was lame and derivative, the emphasis on the girlfriend's racial background was handled clumsily at best, and the relatives were mostly portrayed as stereotypes, not as real people. I found myself wincing uncomfortably at many moments that were supposed to be funny. I can hardly comprehend why the local paper here in SF said this was a good movie, and wonder WHO posted the glowing review here on IMDb. Very disappointed in this movie, and mad I actually went to a theatre to see it, based on the faulty connection to Garden State, which is a far funnier, more inventive, and touching movie than this one. I must especially mention the emotional climax in the church, which was so wooden and by-the-numbers that I nearly left, and some in the audience actually DID. THAT was followed by a silly climax at the graveyard, which I saw coming 10 minutes before it happened. I really don't like being misled to spend my money so uselessly.


Spencer Tracy and Katherine Hepburn would roll over in their graves if they knew this Guess Who's Coming to Dinner Rip Off was actually in theaters. Along with Sidney Poitier and Katherine Houghton these four brilliant actors made a great cultural statement with Director Stanley Kramer's 1967 master piece. This present day rip off is a joke. So a white guy from an overly stereotyped Italian family in Rhode Island brings his African American girlfriend home (Insert GASP here) to his grand father's funeral. His family members reactions were of course....predictable. This movie was so painfully telegraphed from start to finish my girlfriend actually started fake snoring to signal to me that she wanted to leave. Do yourself a favor and rent the original. Take a pass on Wake.


This film is really vile. It plays on the urban paranoia of the 70s/80s and puts it into a school context. I'm not saying that urban crime wasn't a problem for a lot of people or that schools weren't/aren't problem areas but this vile piece of exploitation takes the biscuit. Violence is beyond anything realistically imaginable but in this case it's not a case of social issues but a white, upper-middle class student uses it to turn himself into the crime kingpin of his local high schoiol. And of course he knows how to play the system. Does that sound familiar. Yes. This turd is pure violent exploitation, a really nasty piece of work. It's disturbing brutality dressed up as a social comment. This belongs in the same category as trash like Exterminator, Death Wish 2-5 and so on and so on. The only remarkable thing is that Michael Fox was so broke at the time that he had to do stuff like this.


The creativeness of this movie was lost from the beginning when the writers and directors left out a good story line, only to substitute with horrible special affects. This movie seemed to be focused on amusing children, but couldn't even accomplish that. Many small low budget films have the potential to become great movies, but this movie is no where near that. Fortunately this will be another film easily made, and easily forgotten. This movie was probably a chance for the actors to make a little money on the side until their chance came along for a real role in a good movie. Anyone who has a shred of respect for films, should avoid seeing this movie at all costs.


Relying on the positive reviews above, we saw a free screening of this last night. Now I KNOW that filmmakers plant positive reviews, because there is no way an objective individual could have written these. "Destined to become a 'cult classic'"?? The theater was packed, apparently with friends and families of the production crew, because only a few of us walked out by the first hour.

The songs were the most literal I've ever heard in a musical  "don't take the short cut, honey, there's a wolf in the woods..". Debi Mazar's eyes blinked furiously as she struggled to sing. Fortunately, most of the tunes lasted for only a few lines.

Now, whoever plays the wolf in this tale should be charming and seductive. Instead, we get Joey Fatone, ex N'Syncer, living up to his last name as he's not aged well. He's not exactly lithe with his extra 50 pounds and junior high school-quality makeup and out-of-tune singing. Seriously, this guy was in vocal group? The rest of the actors are semi-adequate, but can't do much about the unimaginative script. You know, it is possible to write for adults and children at the same time  see under "Pixar".

On the positive side, the virtual sets looked nice and were well-integrated with the actors. And it wasn't as offensive as "Crash".


Creepy & lascivious wolf. The young "Red" is wearing full make-up, and extremely short shorts & robe. Got about 20 minutes through and realized it could be a pedophile's dream come true. The "up-beat" music sounds a lot like something I'd hear at a strip club. I actually think this movie is a sick joke - it's not a family movie. Gross, glad I was watching this with my daughter, I don't want her to think it's normal for families to view quasi kiddie porn together. Very bad, Very sad it's sold as a family film, Joey Fatone will probably be embarrassed he was in it. And what's with advertising it as a "special effects spectacular"??? The effects do look low budget, gawd awful.


Just because someone is under the age of 10 does not mean they are stupid. If your child likes this film you'd better have him/her tested. I am continually amazed at how so many people can be involved in something that turns out so bad. This "film" is a showcase for digital wizardry AND NOTHING ELSE. The writing is horrid. I can't remember when I've heard such bad dialogue. The songs are beyond wretched. The acting is sub-par but then the actors were not given much. Who decided to employ Joey Fatone? He cannot sing and he is ugly as sin.

The worst thing is the obviousness of it all. It is as if the writers went out of their way to make it all as stupid as possible. Great children's movies are wicked, smart and full of wit - films like Shrek and Toy Story in recent years, Willie Wonka and The Witches to mention two of the past. But in the continual dumbing-down of American more are flocking to dreck like Finding Nemo (yes, that's right), the recent Charlie & The Chocolate Factory and eye-crossing trash like Red Riding Hood.


This collection really sucks!

I rented it, thinking I´d really would enjoy some good fighting. Man this sucked! Quick flashy cuts, an extremely annoying speaker, and the fights them selves were heavily edited and shortened (I´m thinking especially of Jet Li´s fight in Fists of legend and Jackie Chan´s fight from drunken master 2).

And what´s the deal with those brawling streetfighters?! What´s so "cool" about that? I´ve seen more interesting fights on Martial Law!

This a stupid collection of cuts for stupid people.

Do not ever buy this film! Do not encourage the people who made this crap to make more of this crap!

Instead, go buy the movies the fights were from and wath the fights in their uncut glory!


The good thing about this that's at least fresh: Almost no movies about dance music and the club scene (if even made) hit the cinemas. And it radiates lots of energy too, from the music to the portrayal of Ibiza.

But the main problem is that it can't decide what it wants to be. Although it definitely likes to be a mockumentary in the line of This is Spinal Tap, the makers also realized they wouldn't want to play copycat. However, it fails grossly on the jokes because it's not very well written and most characters are underdeveloped. And it has no arc in its script and directing to make it to 90 minutes, so why not edit it down to 75? The production department and cinematography still try to save the day (e.g. Paul's home).

In a strange way and unexpectedly so It's all gone Pete Tong works much better as a simple drama in the line of Almost Famous. Especially the scenes with Beatriz Batarda offer some acting power.

Conclusion: it's a mess, it somewhat entertains at a basic level, but you better spend a night in your favorite club.


I don't remember seeing another murder/mystery movie as bad as this. This movie, about a medical examiner who investigates his friend's mysterious death in a car accident, has the complete receipt for a bad movie: bad acting, boring story, lack of suspense, poor humor and no drama. I remembered seeing this movie on PAX, a TV station notable for dishing out low-budgeted and campy made-for-TV movies such as this one. TV movies, of course, do not have the edge factor or the suspense as movies from the Big Screen. But, this movie sure hit all sour tastes. The makers of this movie have missed out on an opportunity to making "Receipe for Murder" a great TV movie; the title does offer some suspense.

So, if you want a good recipe, don't watch this movie. This movie alone can kill your TV appetite.

Grade F


The script is so so laughable... this in turn, makes the actors' lines sound stiff and unrealistic and not to be believed. There's repetition of phrases -- "my sweet little god daughter" and minor variations of that line which comes to mind... and it's just sloppy soap opera dialog.

Worse yet, the music is so WRONG! Plus, the main bluesy "theme" is horribly quaint and entirely wrong for this. And it feels overused mostly because the instrumentation, texture and arrangement of this theme never changes, even when the scene's emotional context does.

Subsequently, whenever it appears, it sticks out like a sore thumb as the main transition from one scene to another.

The music's corny, and it's as if the writer were writing music for a soap or a sitcom -- a low budget 80's Canadian sitcom at that -- and this makes it feel as if we're always on the brink of throwing to a commercial.

This is so miscast, there's a lot of overacting and it's a real stretch that so many of these characters are employing only ONE type of NY accent -- a thick Bronx accent. I don't know if it's a question of the actors' limited capacity in only knowing *one* NY accent -- or whether it's a question of the director's ability to notice such an glaring anomaly.

In the end, it's the amateur script with it's leaden lines which makes this entire "movie"... blow. When any foundation is shaky and unstable, it's impossible to build upon it without it's flaws revealing themselves in exponentially more damaging and unflattering ways.


I had high expectations of this movie (the title, translated, is "How We Get Rid of the Others"). After all, the concept is great: a near future in which the ruling elite has taken the consequence of the right-wing government's constant verbal and legislative persecution of so-called freeloaders and the left wing in general, and decided to just kill off everyone who cannot prove that they're contributing something to the establishment (the establishment being called "the common good", but actually meaning the interests of the ruling capitalist ideology).

Very cool idea! Ideal for biting satire! Only, this movie completely blows its chance. The satire comes out only in a few scenes and performances of absurdity, but this satire is not sustained; it is neither sharp nor witty. And for an alleged comedy, the movie has nearly no funny scenes. The comedy, I assume, is supposed to be in the absurdity of the situations, but the situations are largely uncomfortable and over-serious, rather than evoking either laughter or thought.

The script is rife with grave errors in disposition. The action should have focused on the political aspects and how wrong it would be to do such a thing, but instead oodles of time are spent on a young woman who was the one that wrote the new laws for fun, and who's trying to save everybody, by organizing a resistance that ships people to Africa. All this is beside the point! A movie like this should not pretend to be so serious! It's a satire! A political statement. But it doesn't even begin to actually address the problem it's supposed to be about. Maybe it was afraid of going too far? How cowardly. That's not art. It's not even real satire.

Søren Pilmark, a very serious and by now one of Denmark's absolutely senior actors, was very good. He largely carried what little entertainment value the movie had. Everybody else: nothing special (well, perhaps except for Lene Poulsen, who did supply a convincing performance).

In fact, a problem with most Danish movies is that the language never sounds natural. Neither the formulation nor the delivery. Why is it so difficult to make it sound right? Why must it be so stilted and artificial? I hope, when people look at these movies fifty years from now, they don't think that this was how people talked in general Danish society.

3 out of 10.


This movie could have been great(cause its got a somewhat fascinating premise) but it never rises above sheer caricature. The acting is severely flawed and there were moments where i cringed so severely that i thought i was going to fall of my seat in the theater. Never and I mean never Watch this godawfull piece of .... Danish cinema has been getting a lot of good pr the recent years but if this piece of .... crosses the border I'm afraid nobody sane will ever want to rent a danish movie. This movie is the reason why i chose to register here. I really felt i needed to steer people away from this piece of .... my sympathies go out to the people who already went to the cinema to watch this


They probably should have called this movie The Map because the majority of the whole stupid film is revolved around a map of a cemetery. Not to mention how many of the same boring shots of the map there are. The only thing they show more than the map itself is the little beads of sweat that is constantly building up on the forehead of our main character. This of course was the film makers way of showing us how incredibly tense things are getting up on the Immortal Hills Cemetery. Come on now , couldn't they have shown us just one of the death scenes? We hear a whole lot about how everyone who is listed on the map is dropping like flies but we don't get to see anything. Some how I Bury The Living manged to keep my attention so i was fairly generous with the rating i gave it but i will not recommend this movie to anyone. Unless you have a deep fascination with maps or sweat i recommend renting a better I movie , such as I Spit On Your Grave or I Drink Your Blood.


There will be a time where kids will have grown up without ever seeing the one and only Bugs Bunny kiss (technically) another man on the lips. There will be a time where it won't be Duck or Rabbit season. There will be a time where the Tazmanian Devil will be dubbed politically incorrect.

But so help me now is not that time.

Nobody really wants an 'EXTREME' version of our beloved Loony characters. Whoever it is in marketing who comes up with "Corn Nuts: Corn gone wrong" and "Extreme Doritos" and evidently this festering turd should know that just because they have a degree in business or advertising or whatever doesn't mean they know jack about kids.

I think that they're doing a disservice to children, depriving them of one of the greatest and most iconic shows of all time. This show disgusts me, and it's not just the dated artwork or terrible dialogue. They misuse good voice talent, like Phil Lamarr, Michael Clarke Duncan, Candi Milo, and so many others. It lacks style, humor, character development, and most importantly, heart.

The show, like it's repackaged characters (Slam Tasmanian, Rev Runner, Ace Bunny) is but a shadow of it's former, timeless and beautiful self.


"Well Chuck Jones is dead, lets soil his characters by adding cheap explosions, an American drawn anime knock off style, and give them superpowers". "but sir?, don't we all ready have several shows in the works that are already like this? much less don't dump all over their original creators dreams". "yes! and those shows make us a bunch of cash, and we need more!". "but won't every man women and child, who grew up with these time less characters, be annoyed?". "hay you're right! set it in the future, make them all descendent's of the original characters, and change all the names slightly...but not too much though, we still need to be able to milk the success of the classics".

Well that's the only reason I can think of why this even exists. If you look past the horrible desecration of our beloved Looney Toons, then it looks like an OK show. But then there is already the teen titan's, which is the same bloody thing. All the characters are dressed like batman, they drive around in some sort of ship fighting super villains, they have superpowers, only difference is they sort of talk like the Looney tunes and have similar names and character traits.

This kind of thing falls into the "it's so ridiculous it's good" kind of category. Think of the Super Mario brother's movie, and Batman and Robin. If you want to laugh for all the wrong reasons, check this out. If you are of the younger generation (what this thing is actually intended for), and can look pass the greedy executives shamelessness, then run with it and enjoy.

If you enjoy this cartoon I don't have a problem with you, it's the people who calculated this thing together that I am mad at. You know how they say piracy is like stealing a car; this show is like grave robbing. They might as well of dug up all the people involved with the original cartoon, shoved them on a display, dressed them up inerr pirate costumes, and charged money. If this show wasn't using characters (ones that didn't resemble the Looney Toons in anyway whatsoever) that have already made the studios millions, then this would be fine. But no! For shame Warner brothers, for shame.

If I saw this thing as a 30 second gag on an episode of the Simpson's or Family Guy, I would love it. As it is I just can't believe this was ever made. I would bet anyone that 80% of the people who work on this show hate it. But whatever it doesn't really matter, in 10 years this show will have been forgotten, while the originals will live on foreveror at least until the world ends.

"Coming 2008, Snoopy and the peanut gang are back, and now they have freaking lasers and can turn invisible! Can Charley Brown defeat the evil alien warlord Zapar? Tune in and see."


Loony Tunes have ventured (at least) twice into the future. The first time was with the brilliantly funny "Duck Dodgers". The latter time was with this  um  effort. "Loonatics Unleashed" isn't without merit, and might be considered a good product were it not that it isn't up to Warner Brothers quality. WB cartoons are noted for their cheeky humor, appealing at least as much to adults as to children. These pedestrian superhero episodes, on the other hand, cannot fail to convince adults to pass them up.

The premise of the series is that 6 ordinary individuals (2 bunnies, a Tasmanian devil, a duck, a roadrunner, and a coyote) live on the "city-planet" of Acmetropolis and acquire super powers when a meteor strikes the planet in 2772. What's confusing is that the titles section features these individuals with a count-up to 2772 from the 21st Century. Cute, but frelling stupid.

In each episode, the super sextet  amid mildly amusing but essentially banal banter  fight various super villains. For the most part, these are types that appear in every mediocre superhero adventure series and even some of the better ones. Like many mediocre superhero series, this one takes its villains far too seriously for the context. And of course these guys are the only characters that laugh  the usual evil laugh, of course. Why is it that villains in predictable superhero adventures always  ALWAYS  laugh evilly at every opportunity? Animated material of this sort seems to leave laughter exclusively in the province of villains and (occasionally) their henchpeople and/or henchthings.

In point of fact, the makers of this series missed their best bets right from the get-go. The superpowers of the characters are sometimes based on their previous normal abilities, but sometimes not. The problem here is that we don't see enough WB looniness. Lexi and Ace have fairly ordinary biologically generated energy weapons and have virtually no personality traits one could describe as "Bugs-like". What we have here is basically the silly and drekish "Teen Titans", including its overly "modern" animation "look", but with animals. Feh.

The other misstep by the program's creators is (or are) the villains. As noted before, these are not terribly imaginative and do the evil-laugh bit excessively. Amazingly, the writers totally missed the obvious technique of making villains from stock WB characters as well as the protagonists. Adding to the fun could have been, say, Jupiter Sam  as well as The Fudd, still hunting wabbits  as well as Tech E. Coyote converted into a really neurotic villain  and so on. Ah, the sadness of missed opportunities.

Sadly, this whole production has gone into too much overtime (that is, a 2nd season). Nevertheless, we can rejoice that there's something new out there for the 14-going-on-9 crowd. The rest of us can hope for a 3rd season of Duck Dodgers.


"Loonatics Unleashed " is the worst thing that could happen to the classic characters created by Chuck Jones . The "Loony Tunes" have many spin -offs and different versions , some were good ,others not very much .But "Loonatics " it's the worst .The concept is stupid and derivative of shows as "The Power Rangers " and "Teen Titans " . There wasn't any similarity with the original characters and the stories are boring and poorly made . The new designs are ugly and the animation is pathetic . This show just doesn't work .This horrible waste of animation is a complete failure and this shouldn't have be nothing more than a bad joke . Lame ! Zero stars


I think this piece of garbage is the best proof that good ideas can be destroyed, why all the American animators thinks that the kids this days wants stupid GI JOE versions of good stories??? the Looney Tunes are some of the most beloved characters in history, but they weren't created to be Xtreme, i mean come on!!! Tiny Toons was a great example of how an old idea can be updated without loosing it's original charm, but this piece of garbage is just an example of stupid corporate decisions that only wants to create a cheap idiotic show that kids will love because hey!!! kids loves superheroes right??? the whole show is only a waste of time in which we see the new versions of the Looney Tunes but this time in superhero form, this doesn't sound too bad but the problem is that this show tries too hard to copy series like batman the animated series, or the new justice league, the result??? bad copies of flash (the road runner) or superman (who else??? bugs bunny) the problem is that Looney Tunes weren't meant to be dramatic, the were supposed to be funny!!!! as i said before this series sucks, and many people wonders why anime is taking all over the world??? this show tries to be dramatic and action packed, but that's something that few series and anime are able to do, if you want to see a good upgrade of an old show watch Tiny Toons, that's an example that it's possible to bring back to life old characters, but with a good story and respecting the original roots. too bad that show is already dead, another corporate wise decision i suppose.


God, I am so sick of the crap that comes out of America called "Cartoons"!

Since anime became popular, the USA animators either produce a cartoon with a 5-year-old-lazy-ass style of drawing (Kappa Mikey) or some cheep Japanese animation rip-off. (Usually messing up classic characters) No wonder anime is beating American cartoons!

They are not even trying anymore!

Oh, I just heard of this last night; I live in the UK and when I found out this show first came out in 2005,well, I never knew the UK was so up-to-date with current shows.


This is one of those movies that apparently was trying to ride the martial arts wave craze. Kind of like Billy Jack I guess. However, whereas Billy Jack did have one notable martial arts scene there are none in this one unless you consider some gentlemanly grappling and roughhousing as such. We are introduced to the star who is described as having learned Judo in the marines. I was in the marines and while they are pretty established in boxing, I really don't remember any emphasis on Judo. As a result the antagonist, James Macarthur, makes reference to the Judo when he offers an excuse for why he, a state champion wrestler was so easily defeated. Lame.


I saw this movie in NEW York city. I was waiting for a bus the next morning, so it was 2 or 3 in the morning. It was raining, and did not want to wait at the PORT AUTHORTY. So I went across the street and saw the worst film of my life. It was so bad, that I chose to stay and see the whole movie,I have yet to see anything else that bad since. The year was 69,so call me crazy. I stayed only because I could not belive it.........


I saw this recent Woody Allen film because I'm a fan of his work and I make it a point to try to see everything he does, though the reviews of this film led me to expect a disappointing effort. They were right. This is a confused movie that can't decide whether it wants to be a comedy, a romantic fantasy, or a drama about female mid-life crisis. It fails at all three.

Alice (Mia Farrow) is a restless middle aged woman who has married into great wealth and leads a life of aimless luxury with her rather boring husband and their two small children. This rather mundane plot concept is livened up with such implausibilities as an old Chinese folk healer who makes her invisible with some magic herbs, and the ghost of a former lover (with whom she flies over Manhattan). If these additions sound too fantastic for you, how about something more prosaic, like an affair with a saxophone player?

I was never quite sure of what this mixed up muddle was trying to say. There are only a handful of truly funny moments in the film, and the endingis a really preposterous touch of Pollyanna.

Rent 'Crimes and Misdemeanors' instead, a superbly well-done film that suceeds in combining comedy with a serious consideration of ethics and morals. Or go back to "Annie Hall" or "Manhattan".


Why would a person go back to a person, who kicks them in the teeth, not once, not twice, but over and over again.

This film teaches us that in order to find love we must accept abuse (not just forgive it, but fully accept it). Gosh! No wonder my first relationship only lasted ten years. I obviously wasn't embracing my inner masochist.

As Bucatinsky's writing debut, there are many wonderful aspects to this film; however, in order to justify the reunion of Eli and Tom, more character development would have been helpful. We are never acquainted with Eli's masochism, in fact, we are led to believe that he is not a masochist, although Tom's psycho-emotional sadism is highly evident.


I thought this was a truly awful film--I found myself actually yelling at my tv a couple times. One or both of the gay male leads was miscast; there was absolutely no chemistry between them and Richard Ruccolo looked like he'd rather be kissing a dog. The movie covers their long and tortured courtship, highlighting each break-up and make-up, but not developing the reasons in-between in any detail. These reasons would make for some interesting characters, not the fight or the make-up scene in bed (lame even if you liked the movie).

Andrea Martin and Adam Goldberg shine as their characters, but it doesn't make the film worth renting. Save your money.


Demi Moore's character in the movie was selected for the SEALs because of her looks. That was a bad start and the movie went down from there. The plot was totally unbelievable. The will to make it in a tough military unit is not enough. This movie did not convince me of a woman's physical ability to perform the types of tasks required.

Trying to pretend that women and men are basically the same is an insult to everyone's intelligence. The differences between the sexes are what makes life interesting.


I'll be short and to the point. This movie was an insult to any one with a room temperature IQ. Sorry liberals, feminists, etc. No women will ever be a Seal. They can forget about the draft or being in combat too. Ain't going to happen. You see, hard as it is to understand or accept, men and women are physically different.Regardless of the fact it is 2007,reality cannot change things in order for people to avoid having their feelings hurt. Men can't give birth or breast feed babies( Oh-I forgot about San Franfreako ).

Women lack the physical strength to be on par with men in a combat or other physically challenging situations. How many women play in the NFL or NHL? Lastly, I couldn't give a bloody hoot in hell if what I just wrote upsets you.Come to think of it - if this does upset you that only warms my heart more. I didn't write one thing that wasn't the truth. This imbecilic movie is nothing more than a comedy and a lousy one at that.


Watching this movie was a waste of time. I was tempted to leave in the middle of the movie, but I resisted. I don't know what Ridley Scott intended, but I learned that in the army, women get as stupid as men. They learn to spit, to insult and to fight in combat, and that's also a waste of time (in my opinion). And, anyway, what the hell was that final scene in Lybia? Are they still fighting Gadafi or is it that it's easy for everyone to believe islamic people are always a danger?


After reading through many of the reviews, I don't know what movie some people were watching, but clearly it wasn't the same one I saw.

This movie is horrible. The acting, primarily Moore's, is just terrible. The woman cannot act. Nice tits, but she just can't act. At no point did she come across as the actual character. Instead, it was spoiled Hollywood actress goes to the beach to play make-believe with the boys.

And that's what this movie ultimately is -- Hollywood make-believe. The training sequences are over the top. The politics -- over the top. The political correctness -- over the top. The combat scenes -- you guessed it, over the top. Your mission is to get in and get out without being detected. So what do you do? Why shoot off as many rounds and make as much noise as possible, of course. Oh G.I. Jane, you can be my wing man anytime.

The premise is good, but as soon as Hollywood gets a hold of it, we end up with Top Gun with tits.

What more is to be expected from commercial US films anymore? Not much I guess.


Naturally I didn't watch 'GI Jane' out of choice. I was more or less forced to watch this film round my ex-girlfriends house.

GI Jane loses its credibility straight away by trying to convince the viewer that it is potentially a real scenario, which of course it isn't. The result of this is that the story becomes automatically bound by constraints, restricting the amount of humour (of which there is none) or entertaining action scenes, and soon becomes too serious. The film therefore becomes extremely boring and predictable.

'GI Jane' fails where other action films succeed, mainly because films such as James Bond, Dirty Harry and various others are larger than life, yet never proclaim to be otherwise. They are escapism, and therefore entertaining. 'GI Jane' tries to be real and fails.

This is a very disappointing film from Ridley Scott, with a very non-credible storyline, unremarkable acting, and the only reason I give it 2/10 instead of 1/10 is for some of the technical work.


I think that movie can`t be a Scott`s film. That is impossible. Do you remember Blade Runner? And Alien? Two greats movies versus a one. I hope didn´t see ever it. good bye!!


How this film ever got a 6 star average is beyond me. The script is so banal, and frankly an insult to whomevers life it is based upon. The cinematography comes straight from the slick world of advertising, and the talented Ridley Scott should be ashamed. Demi Moore however, shows none a surprise by participating in this film, if one looks at her tracklist. All in all, a "high concept" style film that even Don Simpson would be ashamed of.


A recent post here by a woman claiming a military background, contained the comment "A woman's life is no more valuable than a man's".

This mantra of the politically correct is not true as history as well as biology show. Societies have managed to recover from heavy losses of their male population, sometimes with astonishing speed. Germany was ready to fight another war in 1939 despite the 1914- 1918 war in which over two million of her men were killed. In South America's War of the Triple Alliance (1865), Paraguay took on three neighboring countries until virtually her entire male population was wiped out but fought to a stalemate in the 1932 Chaco War against much larger Bolivia.

No society, however has or ever could survive the loss of its female population. Only when the very life of the nation is at stake are women sent to fight. Israel faced that situation in 1948 but since then has never considered coed combat units for its Defense Forces despite the popular image of the Israeli girl soldier.

"G.I. Jane" is Hollywood fluff.


Hmmm...where to start? How does a serious actress like Demi Moore got involved in such crap? "First blood" might be rated as bull***t but this type of nonsense is just Rambo with tits, point. Of course if you are interested in the crapstory (Demi Moore just wants to prove that a woman can be part of the NAVY Seals) that is the most stupid cliché one I can think of, you'll say "GI Jane" is a great movie. Just the performance from Viggo Mortensen made this movie bearable but hell, I can't think of Demi Moore being Rambo (especially not during the last, useless, 30 minutes). Ridley Scott doesn't deserve the credits to make this movie one that comes up for women with equal rights, it's just brainless propaganda for the American army and to make it more attractive they dropped Moore in it. Awful movie.


A real disappointment from the great visual master Ridley Scott. G.I. Jane tells the story of a first female ever to go through the hellish training at the Navy SEALs. The training is the most difficult and hard in existence as the instructor says in the film to the lead character O'Neil played by Demi Moore. There is no particular message or point in this film or then I couldn't reach it properly. It may be a some kind of a statement of female rights and abilities but it all sinks under the tired scenes and stupid gun fight at the end of the film.

I really can't understand why Ridley uses so much zooms in that mentioned last gun battle at the desert?! It looks sooooo stupid and irritating and almost amateurish so I would really like to know what the director saw in that technique. When I look at his latest film, Black Hawk Dawn, there is absolutely nothing wrong in the battle scenes (which are plenty) and they are very intense and directed with skill. The whole finale in G.I. Jane looks ugly and is nothing more but stupid and brainless shooting and killing.

This is Ridley Scott's worst movie in my opinion and there are no significant touches from which this great director is known. Still I'm glad I saw this in Widescreen format because there are still couple of great scenes and samples of Scott's abilities, but they are very few in this film.

A disappointment and nothing compared to the classics (Blade Runner, Thelma & Louise, Alien and so on..) of this talented director. So I'm forced to give G.I. Jane 4/10.


This movie is very much like "Flashdance", you know that dance flick with Jennifer Beals. That film is probably the most boring film I have ever seen since it's not even bad enough to be funny. "G.I. Jane" is much better than that film, but that doesn't say much. Here Demi Moore sweats a lot and there's high music and we get to see her fight and everything, but it is certainly not very engaging. I really think the idea behind the film is kind of interesting, but the script is too clichéd and Ridley Scott can't do anything about that. Well, like I said... It's better than "Flashdance"... (4/10)


This is easily the worst Ridley Scott film. Ridley Scott is a wonderful director. But this film is a black mark on his career. Demi Moore and Viggo Mortensen, both totally miscast in an overaggressive film about a girl going to the army. Very stupid. And there is never one scene that is convincing in any way. It is really not difficult to make a film such as this. Everything the crew makes could have been an idea of just anybody. The writers didn't have much inspiration either; many foolish dialogs that made no sense at all; and some brainless action. I strongly recommend to stay away from this rubbish. I hope that the many talented persons involved in this project realize this type of film does not deserve their attention, and that in the future they will work on more honorable and more intelligent movies than this useless mess.


This film's basic premise is a political cartoon. I suppose for those who know nothing about the realities of the military this is probably a "feel-good" film on gender equality. Indeed a recent commentator stated: "it lets women know that they can do anything they want to do." What claptrap! No one, man or woman can do anything they want to do, and unfortunately Demi Moore "buffing" up for SEAL Hell Week in the early 27 week BUD/S program by a few sessions at the local gym and her desire alone to be a SEAL is simply not going to make it so. There is approximately an 80% dropout rate in what is arguably THE roughest military training program - those are the ones who voluntarily drop out, can't compete on a physical level, suffer frequent physical injury during the training or can't handle the psychological harassment. I never got beyond the shallowness of the contrived, purported message of this film. In the real world, Demi wouldn't last the first 24 hours in this harsh and sustained physical training. Wishing alone won't do it. Skip this film as wishful thinking, and better spend your time reading "The Warrior Elite" by Dick Couch (Crown, New York 2001)for the best description as to what really goes on in this training. Ring the bell, Demi!


This movie starred a totally forgotten star from the 1930s, Jack Pearl (radio's "Baron Munchausen") as well as Jimmy Durante. However, 7-1/2 decades later, it's being billed as a Three Stooges film because they are the only ones in the film who the average person would recognize today. Film fanatics will also recognize the wonderful Edna May Oliver as well as Zazu Pitts.

As for the Stooges, this is a film from there very early days--before MGM had any idea what to do with the team. At this point, they were known as "Ted Healy and his Stooges" as Healy was the front man. Fortunately for the Stooges, they soon left this nasty and rather untalented man (read up on him--you'll see what I mean) and the rest is history. Within a year, they were making very successful shorts for Columbia and executives at MGM were soon kicking themselves for losing the team. This sort of thing was a common occurrence at MGM, a great studio which had no idea what to do with comedy (such as the films of Buster Keaton, Laurel and Hardy, Abbott and Costello and others). In fact, up until they left for Columbia, MGM put them in a wide variety of odd film roles--including acting with Clark Gable and Joan Crawford in DANCING LADY. And, oddly, in this film they didn't act as a team--they just did various supporting roles, such as Larry playing the piano!

This particular film begins with Pearl and Durante lost in the African jungle. When they are rescued and brought home, all sense of structure to the film falls apart and the film becomes almost like a variety show--punctuated by scenes with the leads here and there. As for Pearl, I could really see why he never made a successful transition to films, as he has the personality of a slug (but slightly less welcome). As for Durante, I never knew what the public saw in him--as least as far as his films are concerned--he was loud and...loud! He apparently took time off from helping MGM to ruin Buster Keaton's career to make this film. Together, Pearl and Durante rely on lots of verbal humor(?) and Vaudeville-style routines that tend to fall rather flat.

In this film, the Stooges they didn't yet have the right chemistry. Seeing Healy doing the job that Moe did in their later films is odd. What they did in the film was pretty good, but because all the segments were short, they came on and off camera too quickly to allow them to really get into their routines. Stooges fans might be very frustrated at this, though die-hard fans may want to see this so that they can complete their life-long goal of seeing everything Stooge--even the rotten Joe DeRita and Joe Besser films (oh, and did they got bad after the deaths of Shemp and Curly).

Overall, the film is rather dull and disappointing. However, there are a couple interesting things to look for in the mess. At about the 13 minute mark, you will see a brief scene where a tour guide on a bus is singing. Look carefully, as this is Walter Brennan in a role you'd certainly never expect! Another unusual thing to look for in the film is the "Clean as a Whistle" song starting at about 22 minutes into the film. This song and dance number is clearly an example of a so-called "Pre-Code" scene that never would have been allowed in films after 1934 (when the Production Code was strengthened). Despite the word "Clean" in the title, it's a very titillating number with naked women showing lots of flesh--enough to stimulate but not enough to really show anything! It's quite shocking when seen today, though such excesses were pretty common in the early 1930s. Finally, at the 63 minute mark, see Jimmy Durante set race relations back a few decades. See the film, you'll see that I mean!


Strained comedy, a sketch-like revue which was initially a vehicle to showcase one-time radio star Jack Pearl but is now best remembered as America's introduction to The Three Stooges. Actually, Larry, Curly and Moe are billed alongside comic Ted Healy as Ted Healy and his Three Stooges. Although the supporting cast features Jimmy Durante (who is completely wasted on dim material) and ZaSu Pitts, the only audience for the film these days are Stooges-addicts, and even they won't find much to applaud here. Incredibly loud and overbearing, it shows how far Hollywood had to go to reach a certain level of slapstick sophistication. *1/2 from ****


Oh, brother. The only reason this very irritating film avoids getting the total "bomb" from me is because it's at least historically noteworthy as the first Three Stooges film (when they weren't yet on their own and were still saddled with that painfully unfunny Ted Healy). But even as a longtime Stooges fan I'd have to say that young Moe, Larry and Curly are badly used here as three zany assistant janitors to Mr. Healy's taller boss janitor. They're not featured steadily through the movie and their silly on-and-off-again stints paint them more like zany overactive cartoon characters trying too hard to be amusing.

Most of this toothache deals with Jack Pearl seeking in vain to get some chuckles from the audience himself as a man who impersonates Baron Munchausen (here's a good example of the level of humor: "I object!" "On what grounds?" "Coffee grounds!"). His sidekick is none other than a young Jimmy Durante, but even the schnoz himself is a bore.


Anyone familiar with my reviews on the Internet Movie Database will know that I can be a grumpy bastard from time to time. There are a lot of films I don't like which, for some unfathomable reason, I've felt the urge to review. However, if anyone out there is curious to know the name of the worst film I've ever seen, look no further than Transylvania 6-5000. Without question, this takes the title of the all-time no. 1 awful film. I can't believe that I actually made it from the start of this clunker to the finish!

It is clearly meant to capture the flavour of Mel Brooks's Young Frankenstein, but where that film was a funny take on horror movie traditions, this one is a desperately strained and misguided attempt to wring laughs from embarrassingly weak material. Jeff Goldblum and Ed Begley Jr look ashamed to be here as a pair of journalists in modern day Transylvania (perhaps they realised early on that they were doomed in this dud). During their research, they come up against all the chief monsters from past horror favourites, such as vampires, werewolves and mummies.

Anyone who manages to brave this film right through to its end may pray that a stake be driven through their heart to relieve them from the agony of boredom. It marks a career nadir for everyone involved and proves that when comedy fails in a big way, it results in awesomely dire entertainment.


Horror spoofs are not just a thing of the 21st century. Way before the 'Scary Movie' series there were a few examples of this genre, mostly in the 80s. But like said franchise most of these films are hit or miss. Some like 'Elvira, Mistress of the Dark' mostly rise above that, but other like 'Saturday the 14th' and it's sequel fail to deliver the laughs. But out of all these types of films there is one particularly big offender and that's 'Transylvania 6-5000,' a major waste of time for many reasons.

Pros: A great cast that does it's best. Some of the dopey humor is amusing. A corny, but catch theme song. Some good Transylvanian locations.

Cons: Threadbare plot. Mostly tedious pacing. Most of the humor just doesn't cut it. The monsters are given little to do and little screen time. I thought this was supposed to be a spoof of monster movies? Lame ending that will likely make viewers angry.

Final thoughts: This is a comedy? If it is then why are the really funny bits so few and far in between? Comedies are supposed to make us roll on the floor, not roll our eyes and yawn, aching for it to be over. I can't believe Anchor Bay released this tired junk. I'll admit it's not one of the worst films ever made, but it's not worth anyone's time or money even if you're a fan of any of the actors. See 'Transylvania Twist' instead.

My rating: 2/5


"Transylvania 6-5000" is an insignificant but occasionally funny and charming mid 80's horror parody with some very familiar names in the cast and a handful of genuine opportunities to chuckle in the script. Two bozo journalist of a gossipy tabloid newspaper are sent, very much against their will, to Transylvania to do a story on the alleged return of mad scientist Frankenstein. There are some adorable little gimmicks and details to discover left and right in the film, like a little guillotine for hard-boiled eggs and laboratory test tubes that are being used to put in cream and sugar at the breakfast table. The wholesome of the film, however, is not as successful as it could and should have been, with jokes and parody situations that are way too overlong. The Roger Corman production "Transylvania Twist", which came out four years after this, is a lot funnier and much more recommended. The film is particularly parodying the classic Universal milestones of the early 30's, so you better make sure you've seen those if you want to grasp all the tiny gags and references. There's a pretty original twist indicating that the Frankenstein character only behaves like a mad-raving evil scientist when he enters his laboratory. It's also revealed that he's actually more of a Father Damien sort of messiah who's only concerned with the condition of exiled monsters. Michael Richards, the freaky guy who plays Kramer in Seinfeld, stars as a psychotic butler who appears and disappears at the most inappropriate moments. I'm pretty sure John Turturro's character in "Mr. Deeds" was inspired by Richards's role here.


This comedy has some tolerably funny stuff in it, surrounded by a lot of unfunny stuff. Just about every scene involving the servants of the castle and their silly antics is a waste of time. And the plotting is so sloppy that it makes you wonder if they actually had a script ready before they started filming this, or they were simply making it all up as they went along. (*1/2)


I saw this movie originally in the theater, when I was 10. Even at that age the 'humor' was mildly insulting to my adolescent intelligence.

In the past, whenever I would see Ed Begley Jr. or jeff Goldblum I would cringe and start to feel very uncomfortable and even slightly sad. Until I was reminded of the existence of this movie today, I was unsure why I felt that way. Apparently I blocked my memory of this movie yet my negative feelings towards two of the perpetrators remained. Apparently I forgot that I saw this movie but subconsciously mourned the pieces of my soul that had been stolen, nay EATEN by the creators of this inhuman work.

I haven't been brave enough to try watching it as an adult. I imagine that as part of the healing process that I should probably look at confronting this childhood fear so that I can *truly* put it behind me. Some regression therapy and / or hypnosis might not be a bad idea either.


Were I not with friends, and so cheap, I would have walked out. It failed miserably as satire and didn't even have the redemption of camp.


I give this five out of 10. All five marks are for Hendrix who delivers a very decent set of his latter day material. Unfortunately the quality of the camera work and editing is verging on the appalling! We have countless full-face shots of Hendrix where he could almost be doing anything, taking a pee perhaps? We don't see his hands on the guitar thats the point! Also we're given plenty shots of Hendrix from behind? There appears to be three cameras on Hendrix, but amateur fools operate all of them. The guy in front of Hendrix seems to be keen to wander his focus lazily about the stage as if Hendrix on the guitar is a mere distraction. While the guy behind is keener on zeroing in on a few chicks in the stalls than actually documenting the incredible guitar work thats bleeding out the amps (the sound recording is good thanks to Wally Heider) Interspersed on the tracks are clips of student losers protesting against Vietnam etc on tracks like Machine Gun, complete waste of film! If Hendrix had lived even another two years Berkeley is one of those things that would never have seen the light of day as far as a complete official release goes. The one gem it does contain is the incredible Johnny B Good but all in a pretty poor visual document of the great man and inferior to both Woodstock and Isle of Wight


Kevin Kline and Meg Ryan are among that class of actors which I am always interested in seeing, despite reviews. I have always found Ms. Ryan to be a charming and winsome actress in nearly all her roles, and Kevin Kline is almost always worth watching.

I say "nearly" and "almost" in large part because of this movie.

First off, Meg Ryan does not play a likeable character, she plays a weak-willed whiner who begins grating on your nerves shortly after the opening credits and doesn't give up until several days later. That said, Kevin Kline's character is even more annoying and less likeable. So, even if you normally like these two actors, I recommend your give this movie a pass.


The premise is ridiculous, the characters unbelievable, the dialogue trite, and the ending absurd.

Believe me, I'm a fan of Kevin Kline, but watching him do a Pepe Le Pew accent for 2 hours as a supposed Frenchman is not nearly as amusing as it sounds.

For her part, Meg Ryan is once again as perky and adorable as a (take your pick): kewpie doll, baby, puppy, kitten, whatever you happen to think is the cutest creature on earth. She also bears not the slightest resemblance to a real human being.

This movie strikes me as an opportunity seized by buddies Lawrence Kasdan and Kline to vacation in Paris and the south of France while being well-paid for it. So I can't really blame them.


Un-bleeping-believable! Meg Ryan doesn't even look her usual pert lovable self in this, which normally makes me forgive her shallow ticky acting schtick. Hard to believe she was the producer on this dog. Plus Kevin Kline: what kind of suicide trip has his career been on? Whoosh... Banzai!!! Finally this was directed by the guy who did Big Chill? Must be a replay of Jonestown - hollywood style. Wooofff!


The film looks super on paper. A romantic comedy in which a frantic lover gets dragged into a smuggling thriller should be generic cross-breeding gold, especially with this excellent romcomic cast.

I'm afraid Lawrence Kasdan simply gives his two stars too much rope though and they duly go and hang themselves. Adam Brooks' script may well be to blame but you'd expect better from the Kevin Kline of A Fish Called Wanda. Instead the two ping-pong off one another and the unlikely burgeoning romance is never reconciled satisfactorily with the reason either of them are in and dashing around France.

Jean Reno co-stars amiably as the cop-with-a-heart and I guess wishes he was a star-with-a-part. Mind you he went on to do those Pink Panther remake(s!) so perhaps he was OK with this... 3/10


One of the those "coming of age" films that should have nostalgia for adults and promise for the kids. This movie has neither. It is a poor excuse to let Sylvia Kristel's body double frolic with a dorky Eric Brown. To make matters worse, the movie is either silly or stupid when it tries to be funny, sexy, or dramatic. Laugh awkwardly as we are supposed to believe that a teenager would go alone with burying a dead woman in his front yard. Ponder vigorously on why a woman famous for Emmanuelle needs a body double. As the movie went on and on, I started to imagine a hybrid of Private Lessons and Little Miss Millions that had Sylvia Kristel seduce Jennifer Love Hewitt as Howard Hesseman makes us nostalgic for WKRP. Watch this to laugh at other people's stupidity, or for Ed Begley Jr.'s committed performance, or to wonder what Sylvia Kristel would look like with Jennifer Love Hewitt. But I can give you an idea of your lesson, stay away from movies staring Sylvia Kristel that are not Emmanuelle.


Let's put political correctness aside and just look at this in terms of the numerous sex comedies that came out in the 1980's because I for one don't think this is any better or any worse than the others. Unless your some religious kook or an uptight female you can probably view a silly film such as this without getting all worked up about the content and I personally had a totally innocuous feeling towards this before and after watching it. Story is set in Albuquerque, New Mexico where a rich 15 year old boy named Phillip "Philly" Fillmore (Eric Brown) is naturally horny as hell and starts spying on the attractive maid that has just started working for his father.

*****SPOILER ALERT***** Nicole Mallow (Sylvia Kristel) is friendly to Philly but things heat up when his father goes out of town on business and she starts to flirt with him to the point where she invites him into her bedroom to watch her undress. Philly is awkward and doesn't know how to react at first but soon he goes for it and has sex but than to his horror it seems that Nicole has died from a heart attack! With the help from the sleazy chauffeur Lester Lewis (Howard Hesseman) they seemingly have buried her body but a note from a blackmailer shows up and Philly must get $10,000 out of his father's safe. Philly is shocked when Nicole shows up and he learns that the whole thing was an extortion plan set up by Lester and that she only went along with it because she's an illegal alien and if she didn't do what she was told Lester would have called the immigration office. Together they try to get his father's money back before he returns home and they enlist the help from Jack (Ed Begley Jr.) who is a tennis instructor but pretends to be a cop to scare Lester.

This little comedy was made for less than $3 million but it grossed over $50 million worldwide and made it one of the least likely films during that time to be so successful which prompts me to wonder why this was a hit and not any of the others in the genre. Director Alan Myerson can boast that he made a hit film but the truth is that he never really had a career in films although he did go on to be very successful in television. So...why did this become so successful? I have a thought that it just may be because of Kristel and before you decide that I'm crazy listen to my reasoning. Kristel was an international star because of her soft core films so that reason alone made many free thinking adults curious about viewing her in an American film that was getting a wide release. With that, the same adults would also be nostalgic about their own youth and the fantasy of being taught the ways of lovemaking by an attractive older woman which brings in the much younger audience members who are probably still very inexperienced and curious about the film. Anyway, that's my thought and if anyone has another reason I would love to hear it but back to the film itself it's apparent (and very sad) that a film like this could probably never get made again (except in Europe) because of the religious right and the other prudish freaks who just can't come to terms with the fact that a teenage boy getting laid will not do him any harm. In fact, it's a valuable service that ALL BOYS pray will happen to them! The film itself is clumsy and Kristel's body double is all too evident in certain scenes especially if you take careful note of the difference in their nipples. The story (although intriguing in it's basic form) is neither very funny or revealing so were left ogling the nude scenes that are really the norm for the genre.


Back in my days as an usher "Private Lessons" played at the 4-plex I was working. It was a sleeper hit selling out Friday and Saturday nights for several weeks. I never got around to seeing it but saw that it was on cable this last weekend, so I decided to give it a shot. What I witnessed for the next 90 minutes was one of the worst movies I have ever seen and one that made me terribly uncomfortable to watch.

The basic story is a teenage boy lusts after his sexy maid (Sylvia Kristel). She, too, seems to feel an attraction towards the boy but for more sinister reasons. So we get scenes of the boy watching her undress and her inviting him in to watch. And it goes from there.

Eric Brown, as the teenage boy, has to be one of the worst actors I have ever seen. His "scared" reactions to every time Sylvia takes off a piece of clothing or when she touches him are horrible. I didn't laugh a single time during this piece of junk.

And let's not get started on the subplot of the maid and chauffeur planning to extort money from the kid. Let's just say it involves faking a death, burying a body.... I could go on and on but it gets more ridiculous.

The sex scenes are the worst I have ever seen. Even though Eric Brown was older then he looked, the fact is he looks like a baby. It appears he has no idea how to kiss a woman (if THAT was acting then maybe I should re-think my criticisms of Brown) and it just came too close to bordering on child pornography to be erotic. I have never been so turned off by a sex scene even though Miss Kristel is quite beautiful with and without clothes.

**SPOILER WARNING** I must make mention of the last scene. To me it's just plain sick but I can remember audiences cheering as the film freeze framed and dissolved into credits. Our hero returns to school and begins a flirtation with one of the female teachers. He asks her out for dinner and she gives him a look as if Tom Cruise has just asked her out. She nods affirmatively and he walks away, smiling at the camera in triumph. GIVE ME A BREAK! Yes I am sure teachers all over would just risk everything for a plain looking teenage kid.

I will never understand the appeal this film had in 1982. Certainly it was more then the nudity because there were plenty of teen sex comedies with nudity that bombed at the box office. And to think that these same teenagers that cheered that movie 22 years ago are now working their way up corporate ladders and possibly helping to run this country. THAT is a scary thought.


It is obviously illegal. Pedophiles pray on stuff like this. How did they get away with making such a movie? This movie is all summed up in one word, SICK. Where do people get off making, and watching these kinds of films. As I was watching the movie I didn't actually think they would allow this kid that is say maybe 12 if that actually sleep with this woman. Sorry if this is a spoiler to you but I would have rater not seen this. Where has the sanity of these people gone? Maybe the makers of this movie are pedophiles? Our society today is filled with all types of sexual predators that pray upon children, yet film makers make these types of movies that do nothing but provoke this type of behavior. I noticed that on a previous comment someone asked if there was a version where it showed them naked. This is a kid here, and someone is asking something like this? What is wrong with this picture?


A previous reviewer said the movie is not all that bad. What?!?!?! The movie glorifies child molestation. Oh, but Sylvia Kristel was naked in it, so let's give it 5 out of 10 stars. Why not a full 10? Because the filmography was "agonizing," the child's looks of shock were "unrealistic," and the fat friend was "irritating." Nowhere in the review does the reviewer express any outrage that an American movie in 1981 featured scenes of a child having sex with a grown woman. I happened to catch this steaming loaf of a movie while staying at a hotel that had Showtime. To me, even if the fat friend had acted up a storm and was a deserving of an Oscar, I would still have to give the movie only 1 star. That TV's Howard Hessman starred in the movie at the same time as he was appearing in WKRP is particularly ridiculous. But don't take my word for it!


A woman (Sylvia Kristel) seduces a 15 year old boy (Eric Brown). They have sex...but it's all tied into some stupid plot or something.

Easily one of the most disturbing sex comedies ever. Does anyone realize this movie is making light of child molestation? I suppose it's OK cause it's a teenage boy--if we had one with a man seducing a teenage girl there would (rightfully) be outrage. Sorry, but having it done to a boy doesn't excuse it. It's still sick. I realize Brown was of age (he was actually 18 when this was made) but he LOOKS 15. I just find it disturbing that some people find this OK.

Plot aside the acting sucks (Kristel is beautiful--but can't act; Brown is easily one of the worst child actors I've ever seen) and the constant nudity gets boring and isn't even remotely erotic.

I saw this drivel at a theatre back in 1981. I was 19 and with my 14 year old cousin (who could easily pass for 18). HE wanted to see it--I didn't but I decideD what the heck? We got in and I actually bought tickets for three teenage boys who were obviously underage. My cousin thought is was boring and the three other kids left halfway through! Let me make this clear--three TEENAGE BOYS left a movie with tons of female nudity! That should give you an idea of how bad this is. I'm surprised this was ever released. A 1 all the way.


I remember that show. I still remember that kick ass fun song "America's Funniest People." Frankly it should've been titled American's lame or unfunny or downright disgusting People. Dave couldn't save this show and neither could Bob Saget or the replacement hosts for AFV that came later. The Jackalope segments were hilarious and yes Dave could make some good voice overs that were better than Bob's. But this show went to hell because of the lame crappy videos people submitted. Also it developed as somewhat of a variety show with lame guest stars including the Olson Twins. Plus AFV was in it's prime before they started picking the drooling ugly as sin babies as the winner. Did I mentioned the videos were disgusting and lame? But still the theme song rocks!


This was a rip-off of the same garbage we had to watch Bob Saget host during the half-hour before this. Dave Coulier only thought he was funny and it was pretty much the same show as America's Funniest Home Videos except with a hosts who have a combined IQ of three. Tawny Kitaen must've really needed the money and Coulier had to go to the recycle bin for his jokes. It was torture enough having to see him imitate Popeye and other washed up cartoon starts on Full House. That one dude who played all of the practical jokes on everyone deserves to be on the receiving end of a Grade A wedgie. Coulier must've needed to money to please Alannis Morisette while they were dating.


As many agree, Origin is a beautiful anime artistically. The music, graphics, and the world created are gorgeous and it really stands above most other modern animated works. However, if you are looking for more than this, than I suggest looking else where. The beauty stops short of its appearance, and when it really comes down to plot and characters, there's nothing special. Action is slow and minimal and the people are flat, corny at times, and do not act realistically. Not to mention the plot hole here and the plot hole there... So, in summary, oh my goodness, I've never seen an anime as beautiful as this one; and oh my goodness, it's like... -poke- people don't act like that. It took a GIANT step forward in graphics and music in anime, but it also took a few step backs to times of bad characterization, and unfortunately, there's not even that much action to make up for that...


As seems to be the general gist of these comments, the film has some stunning animation (I watched it on blu-ray) but it really falls short of any real depth.

Firstly the characters are all pretty dull. I got a hint of a kind of Laputa situation between Agito, Toola and the main antagonist Shunack. However maybe my mind wanderd and this was wishful thinking (Laputa being my favourite animé, original Engilsh dub). The characters are not really lovable either and as mentioned in another post they fall in love exceptionally quickly, leaving poor old Minka jealous and rejected (she loves Agito, who seems oblivious of this). However she promptly seems to forgive Toola at the end with no explanation for the change of heart other than it makes the ending a little bit more "happy".

There is also a serious lack of explanation. Like who are the druids really? Are they people? and who are the weird women/girls who seem to hang out with them and run the forest? There is nothing explaining why they are there and how they can give regular humans superpowers. The plants coming from the moon still does not fill in the blanks about this. It is almost like a weird version of The Day of the Triffids.

And who does call Toola? why bother with this if it wont be explained?

I really wanted to like this film but I found the plot no where near as deep as a film like Ghost in the Shell or having any real character like those of Miyazaki. I do not resent watching it but I do sort of wish I hadn't bought it. My advice? Give it a go if you have a couple of hours to spare, but borrow it, or buy it cheap! Perhaps if your new to animé films and don't have much to go by you will enjoy it. It certainly is visually pleasing.


Seeing as I hate reading long essays hoping to find a point and being disappointed, I will first tell everyone that this movie was terrible. Downright terrible. And not, surprisingly for the reasons mentioned in the first review. I thought I might agree with him, seeing as he gave the movie the rank it deserved, but was sorrowfully rebuked upon reading what he said. I am quite ashamed to be taking the same side as someone who commented that the movie "definitely lacks good-looking females." Let me be the first to say, "Wow! that was definitely some serious in-depth reviewing there. My mind can hardly comprehend the philosophical musings about this movie." Seriously though, a lack of "good-looking females" shouldn't be considered an essential to a movie. If you're desperate enough for "good-looking females" you should really watch other types of movies, not necessarily falling into the sci-fi category.


No spoilers here but I have been a fan since Waking the Dead started but the last series, of which only 3 have been on so far is awful. The stories bear no resemblance to the original idea of the series. I found these 3 in the last series jaw droppingly ludicrous. As a BBC licence payer, after the show I rang BBC complaints to pass on my disappointment. I'm amazed that actors of the calibre of Trevor Eve and Sue Johnstone didn't object to the story lines. These actors have been with these characters for 8 seasons, surly they can see it's lost all direction. It's a good job it is the last series or the next series may start with the team investigating the death of Father Christmas!

Paul Bentley, West Yorkshire, England.


I feel like I've just watched a snuff film....a beautifully acted, taut, engrossing and horrible thing! A two hour litany of perversion in the most basic and all inclusive sense of the word, sexual violence and torture, rape, decapitation, incest, corruption, live burial, and abuse, abuse, abuse. No redemption whatsoever. And I WAS entertained. I couldn't stop watching. What does this say about me, about the people who make and act in this sort of thing, and a world that has become so desensitized that eventually real snuff films will be the norm. And I'm neither puritanical nor humorless, I don't try to hide from the existence of darkness, and I definitely have not led a sheltered life, but I am ashamed of myself. AND I'm sorry to see my British cousins dragging the subject-matter sewers the way my own tribe does. It doesn't have to be cozy, but does it have to wallow in vicarious sadism?


I absolutely hate this programme, what kind of people sit and watch this garbage?? OK my dad and mum love it lol but i make sure I'm well out of the room before it comes on. Its so depressing and dreary but the worst thing about it is the acting i cant stand all detective programmes such as this because the detectives are so wooden and heartless. What happened to detective programmes with real mystery??? I mean who wants to know what happened to fictional characters we know nothing about that died over 20 years ago??? I wish the bbc would put more comedy on bbc1 cos now with the vicar of dibley finished there is more room for crap like this.


I am sorry to fans of this film but it is the worst thing i have ever seen. Slow,badly cast and badly acted it is a film trying to escape the deadbeat romcoms of the recent years and failing! McDonald and Parker seem unable to convey real emotion and are lifeless. They seem to be in this one for any pay checks they are getting for it and not because they thought it was a good idea. The plot is DULL!! i love great chick films as much as the next girl and this is not one!! If you avoid one film this year....let it be


Director Jonathan Lynn has made some underrated comedies in the past, like 'Greedy' and 'Clue'. This isn't one of them. More akin to a 'Police Academy' film than its inspiration, it stars Steve Martin in the old Phil Silvers role as an army sergeant forever pulling scams under the nose of his superiors. But the idyllic life of Bilko and his lazy platoon looks shaky when an old enemy visits the base determined to catch Bilko in the act. Nothing much happens, really. It's all quite dull. It's not very funny. Martin, Dan Aykroyd and Phil Hartman squeeze a couple of laughs out through sheer effort, but they're all better than this and it's quite painful watching them work with such thin material.


OK I'm not an American, but in my humble Scottish opinion Steve Martin is not, never has been, and never will be a funny man as long as our posteriors point in a southerly direction. Phil Silvers as Sergeant Bilko was a funny man, no doubt due to the skilled writers and directors and all the other talented team working characters in the series who contributed perfectly to one of the funniest and dateless situation comedies America has ever produced. How anyone could have the audacity to even attempt to replicate the Phil Silvers character is beyond me. To compound things the exercise was repeated in Martin's unfunny attempt to be Peter Seller's Inspector Clouseau, another abortive attempt, in my opinion, to rekindle a demonstrably unfunny career. Some of your contributers say 'Steve Martin puts his own stamp on the character', to that I would say 'balderdash' , his portrayals will be long forgotten when those of Silvers and Sellars will be treasured for generations to come


Maybe I'm really getting old, but this one just missed me and the old Funny Bone completely. Surely there must be something powerful wrong with this Irishman (that's me, Schultz!). Lordy, lordy what I would give to see the light! Firstly, that Phil Silvers manic energy, wit and drive was very much a part of the comedic upbringing and overall education in life, if you will. Although it is possible that the series, first titled: "YOU'LL NEVER GET RICH" (1955-59*) could have gotten on the CBS TV Network with someone else in the title role of Sgt. Bilko, it is very hard to picture any other Actor/Comedian in the business wearing those Master Sergeant's stripes.

Such a strong identification is inescapable, though not the same sort of career-wrecking typecasting of a nightmare that it proved to be to some other guys, like Clayton More("THE LONE RANGER"), George Reeves ("THE ADVENTURES OF SUPERMAN") and Charles Nelson Riley ("UNCLE CROC'S BLOCK").

One major stumbling block to successfully adapting and updating such a work from the 1950's TV Screen to the 1990's Movie-going public is our collective memory. Without being sure about what percentage of the crowd remembered the Bilko character from seeing the original run and early syndication revivals, and their numbers were surely considerable; even a large segment of the young had seen Bilko reruns in recent times. It was obvious that the new film and the source were miles; or even light years apart.

So as not to be thought of as a totally square, old grouch please let's consider some other points.

Right here today, the 14th Day of November In The Year of Our Lord 2007, let me swear and affirm under Oath that I have been a Steve Martin fan for nearly 30 years, Furthermore, I've enjoyed the wit and talents of Bilko '96 Co-Stars Dan Akroyd and the Late Phil Hartman. After all, it was the talents of guys like this and so many others, Alumni of "NBC;s Saturday NIGHT" and "SECOND CITY TV" that kept the last quarter of the 20th Century laughing. But a BILKO re-make; it just didn't click.

Perhaps if the film had been made as a Service Comedy (always liked 'em!) but without the Bilko Show names and gave it some identity of it self it would be more highly regarded by crabby, old guys like me.

So, we've already had so many sitcom and cartoon series turned into movies lately, what's next? Howse about somebody doing Hal Roach's World War II Army Comedy Series of Sergeants DOUBLEDAY & AMES and TV's 1st Cartoon Series "CRUSADER RABBIT"? Remember where you heard it first! POODLE SCHNITZ!


This may or may not be the worst movie that Steve Martin has ever made, but it certainly was far from his best. Obviously, he did this crap for the pay check. Dreck like this certainly does nothing to enhance his reputation as a funny man. What he doesn't seem to grasp is that when people go to see a Steve Martin movie, they expect to be entertained, not bored to tears. It's sad that he dragged Dan Aykroyd and Phil Hartman down with him. I don't understand why talented people can't get a grip on the fact that people don't want to see them in lousy movies. If you're going to call a movie a comedy, then it should be funny. This wasn't. Shame on the US military for allowing itself to be associated with this pabulum, too. Full Metal Jacket had more laughs than this miserable excuse for a "service comedy." Surely, Phil Silvers is rolling over in his grave.


For 50 years after world war 2 the United States was in a state where key segments of the economy were dominated by military interests. At the same time, because of the draft and wars, everyone in society had served, or was connected to someone who had.

This allowed for a minigenre based on the notion of American cleverness in the midst of an inflexible military machine. Sometimes that machine was non-US military, for example in prisoner of war situations. Once removed are stories in other machines: science fiction and corporate, but they always reference this military genre, and indeed the testosterone shots of action even reference their comic sibling.

You can trace it, I think, perhaps starting in the comic, meaning Amrican, sections of "The Great Escape," which immediately spawned TeeVee offspring in "Gomer Pyle" and "Hogan's Heros." Then a second wave triggered by "Catch 22" and "MASH," both of which had been real life, then books, then movies, and in the MASH case, then TeeVee.

But before all that, there was the "Phil Silvers Show," about a Sergeant Bilko and this followed from "Mister Roberts." A happy con man, who only committed harmless crimes, and then only as response to an overly crude system which attempted to limit his life. This was in the day when TeeVee shows mattered. You absorbed them instead of merely carrying them to work to chatter about. It wasn't particularly clever in any way, except in finding that crack between what we wanted in control and freedom.

Its one large zone where Americans worked out how they think about forgivable, even endearing lies in a military context, a zone that has been appropriated by one of our political parties here.

Because its big, it sometimes pays off in laughs. "Stripes" was pretty darn funny I thought. It had the twist of the misfits actually defeating serious foes, sort of folding in some "Dirty Dozen." And sexual adventure.

Now this, well before the cultural wars escalated. It tries to touch that sweet spot, like other remakes that manhandled Steve Martin. It is so unfunny, you actually root for the Army to be the stronger player. Yet another way to track how societies work out the handles on military power.

Ted's Evaluation -- 1 of 3: You can find something better to do with this part of your life.


I know I've already added a comment but I just wanted to clarify something...

I'm not some old fogey from the Baby Boom generation that grew up glued to a flickering b/w picture of Phil Silvers, Jackie Gleason etc.

Bilko was already 20 years old before I was born but I had the pleasure of discovering Phil Silver's Bilko courtesy of BBC2. I wonder if I would have enjoyed Steve Martin's travesty if I hadn't seen or heard of Phil Silvers - I don't know - maybe I would have.

Some of the other reviewers who think this movie is worthy of a '10' admit that they haven't seen the original. I can only urge you to spend 21 minutes of your life watching a single episode. If after watching the original Ernie, Colonel Hall, Ritzig & Emma, Duane Doberman, Henshaw, Dino, Flashman, Zimmerman, Mullin et al you still think that Steve Martin's film is woth anything above a '2' - I'll stand you a pint....


Steve Martin should quit trying to do remakes of classic comedy. He absolutely does not fit this part. Like the woeful remake of the Out Of Towners, this movie falls flat on it's face. How anybody ever thought Steve Martin could even come close to Jack Lemmon's wonderful performance is beyond me and the same is true for this movie. Dan Ackroyd could have played the Bilko part better. Martin is great when doing his own original characters but fails miserably trying to recreate other people's classic work. It's a sad statement when the funniest part of a movie is contained in the first line of the credits when the movie is over. The line "The producers gratefully acknowledge the total lack of cooperation by the United States Army" was just about the only line that actually made me laugh. If you want to see the real Bilko, get hold of the original episodes of the Phil Silvers Show. Those are guaranteed to make you laugh, unlike this mistake that should never have happened. I put this movie in the same category as the aforementioned Lemmon classic and the remake of Psycho. None of them should ever have happened.


This was a disappointing movie. Considering the material---army life is always good for a laugh---and the stars, this movie should have been a fall down laughfest. It was worth a couple of chuckles, at best. Steve Martin has been much funnier than this and it appears that Dan Ackroyd should stick to dramatic roles, where he might follow Robin Williams' lead and someday win an Oscar.


Even Steve Martin and Dan Aykroyd couldn't save this movie from laying an emu-sized egg. Based on the classic Phil Silvers TV series, it bombed because: A) It was updated to the 1990s, and B) The simple premise of the TV series was turned into a confusing, feeble and silly screenplay.

The original TV series used a small cast of talented actors to portray lovable characters acting out simple yet hilarious pranks. To expand this premise into a 1990s movie was asking for trouble, and it shows. No one could pay me enough to sit through this stinker a second time.


When I say " Doctor Who " you might conjure up an image of Tom Baker , or Jon Pertwee or maybe Peter Davison . When I say " James Bond " you`ll almost certainly conjure up an image of Sean Connery while a small handful of people may think of Roger Moore or Pierce Brosnan . But when I say " Sgt Bilko " absolutely everyone will think of Phil Silvers . Unlike Doctor Who or James Bond the role belongs exclusively to one actor . And that`s the problem with this film version you`ll continually wish you were watching the old black and white show . In fact the whole idea of making a film version of BILKO without Silvers in the title role comes close to sacrilage


This film is a pure failure. I am a Steve Martin fan, but even he can't save the tired idea and swiss cheese script. Think "Police Academy 7" and apply it to a military parody. Yuck.

I DO NOT feel the other user comments reflected the poor rating this film received (and rightfully deserved!). It is extremely misleading. I have often seen this film marked down to $3.00 in the grocery store and now I certainly know why.

If only I could get my 90 minutes back...


I am watching this movie right now on WTN because that was the channel that the TV was turned to when I turned it on. It is a not very credible and fairly boring story about a minister's wife (Alexandra Paul) falling in lust with a young stud/drifter (with washboard abs) played by Corey Sevier. There may or may not be a plot. Corey whips his shirt off a lot and Alexandra swoons. I'm getting the feeling he's supposed to be up to no good, and that's why he's messing with skinny Alexandra Paul. It's not really important because as I said he takes his shirt off a lot and I just caught a glimpse of butt cleavage. There's a lot of sax on the soundtrack, which is just painful.


I watched this movie last week sometime and had the biggest laugh i've had in a long while. The plot of the film is pretty dumb and convoluted in a badly crafted way. The only plus to be found anywhere in the film are Corey Savier's impressive abs. Alexandra Paul (i think that's her name) is horrendous as the preacher's wife who has a history of depression. Ted McKenzie is gross and his character's a twit on top of it all. And as if the fact that you think she's having sex with her son isn't enough, they throw in needless sax solos at every opportunity! The end and climax of this film is absolutely abysmal and also laughable. I mean who the hell wants to carry the child of a con who tried to make you think he was your son and that you were having an incestuous relationship with him!


This movie is so bad it's good -- in an unintentionally funny way. I couldn't stop watching it, I was laughing so much! It's like a parody of a romantic thriller, except it's not a parody.

Alexandra Paul plays Emily Wendell, an oppressed preacher's wife who falls hard for Luke (Corey Sevier), a hunky and mysterious drifter who we eventually learn was in prison; the only thing Sevier is guilty of, though, is bad acting! Mind you, he's no worse than the other actors. You get the sense that the actors have *no* idea they're in a really awful film; they're playing it straight. Everything about the film is bad: the acting, the script, the love scenes, the pacing, the plot twists, the choice of music. The climactic scenes are just so ludicrous -- first the shootout in the church, then Luke's final words to Emily -- I was howling with laughter.

Evidently Luke did a lot of weight lifting and ab crunches in prison, and we get to see plenty of his naked torso. That's probably the highlight of the film.