When my wife and I decided to watch this movie we thought it couldn't fail. I love Billy Crystal, my wife loves Julia Roberts and everyone we talked to said they loved it.

We were misled, in spades.

On my part, I felt Billy Crystal's character was extremely one-dimensional and did very little for the film. Sure, he cracked a couple of good jokes, but as a character he did nothing but take up space.

And poor Julia Roberts. In past shows she plays well as a strong-willed, self-determined lady. In this flick, she seems completely repressed and had very little fire. This is not the Julia Roberts that my wife enjoys watching.

OK, if I were to find one good thing, it would have to be Christopher Walken. Now that's entertainment. But, just like Billy Crystal, hardly anything is shown of his character.

If you're looking for a night of mindless laughs with very little redeeming value, go see it. But if you're looking for a smart, romantic comedy, this is not your film. It's none of the above.


This movie is horrible! It rivals "Ishtar" in the number of embarrassingly bad moments. I would have rated it lower than a 3, save for a couple of funny lines; but, overall, this film was crap! It looked like they made it over a weekend at some bankrupt resort somewhere. Joe Roth should join Elaine May on the directing sidelines forever!


What a stinkeroo this turned out to be!!! At one time, much earlier in her career, Linda Darnell was one of my favorites - no great shakes as an Actress, but very beautiful and pleasant (particularly in films like "The Mark of Zorro" and "Blood and Sand") but when I saw this monstrosity, the memories of her golden days faded quickly. The story is unbelievable and farcical, the acting second-rate, the supporting cast insufferable. I cannot think of a more immature performance by anyone when compared to Tab Hunter, and Donald Gray had to be the most boring leading man they could have picked. Added to this, was the terrible photography (and I am not just referring to the color!) Everyone associated with this, must have shuddered whenever it was shown.


I just watched this horrid thing on TV. Needless to say it is one of those movies that you watch just to see how much worse it can get. Frankly, I don't know how much lower the bar can go.

The characters are composed of one lame stereo-type after another, and the obvious attempt at creating another "Bad News Bears" is embarrassing to say the VERY least.

I have seen some prized turkeys in my time, but there is no reason to list any of them since this is "Numero Uno".

Let me put it to you this way, I watched the Vanilla Ice movie, because it was so bad it was funny. This...this...is NOT even that good.


The saddest part of this is the fact that these are 87 minutes I'll never get back. I knew this was terrible from the get-go, with the guy dressed as a lunatic Indian chief on top of the roof. (See if they could get away with that in 2008). My 10-year-old boy is really into baseball right now, so we decided to rent it on a rainy day. Even though he seemed to enjoy parts of it, I had to cringe when I heard all the needless foul language. Bad, bad movie. This was an awful ripoff of Bad News Bears. Completely shameless and completely predictable. I don't mind a predictable movie if it's done well, but this one absolutely was not.


Have not watched kids films for some years, so I missed "Here Come the Tigers" when it first came out. (Never even saw "Bad News Bears" even though in the '70s I worked for the guys who arranged financing for that movie, "Warriors," "Man Who Would Be King," and "Rocky Horror Picture Show," among others.) Now I like to check out old or small movies and find people who have gone on to great careers despite being in a less than great movie early on. Just minutes into this movie I could take no more and jumped to the end credits to see if there was a young actor in this movie who had gone on to bigger and better things--at least watching for his/her appearance would create some interest as the plot and acting weren't doing the job. Lo and behold, I spied Wes Craven's name in the credits as an electrical gaffer. He'd already made two or three of his early shockers but had not yet created Freddie Krueger or made the "Scream" movies. Maybe he owed a favor and helped out on this pic. More surprising was Fred J. Lincoln in the cast credits as "Aesop," a wacky character in the movie. F.J. Lincoln, from the '70s to just a few years ago, appeared in and produced adult films. He was associated with the adult spoof "The Ozporns," and just that title is funnier than all of "Tigers" attempts at humor combined. Let the fact that an adult actor was placed in a kids movie be an indication as to how the people making this movie must have been asleep at the wheel.


Might contain possible spoilers (Not that anything in this film is new or will even mildly surprise you for that matter)

Why does Disney feel the need to recycle everything they ever made into oblivion? Sure it's cheaper for them, but after a while, wouldn't you think there overall quality and the way people think of them would drop off. House Of Villains is a despicable display of cartoon crossovers that make absolutely no sense at all. Some signs of the total disregard for previous films in this are: The voices don't even remotely match up and Iago is evil again (Since when?!) I know that these films are directly towards children but there was a time when all could enjoy Disney films. Even the movie's musical number (which had been Disney's specialty for years) stunk. I wouldn't recommend this film to anyone even the very young. All I can is that if more of these movies of the same caliber are released, it's only a matter of time before some small animation studio surpasses Disney in overall quality.


I found this on the shelf while housesitting and bored. How can people possibly give this a 10? It's not just that it's supposed to be a feel-good redemption film (I think), because it doesn't work on that level either. Weak plot, bad dialogue, terrible acting; there's just nothing there. Harvey Keitel is decent, but has nothing to work with, and Bridget Fonda and especially Johnathon Schaech are just terrible. The plot progression (especially the relationship between Byron and Ashley) makes no sense. It seems like the writers wanted the plot to go a certain way and made it, without actually writing in the necessary bits to make it flow. It's only an hour and a half, but that's 90 minutes of your life you'll never get back.


This movie makes Canadians and Brits out to be asinine, moronic idiots. The men get stoned/drunk, and then they yell/beat each other up in almost every scene. The women are superfluous to the story  I do not understand what they are there for  they spend every scene causing a ruckus, or worse, milling around like mesmerized cattle. Apparently, Canadian women are either quarrelsome vulgar tramps or hulking hippie chicks. It's the standard knocked-up girlfriend, her loser boyfriend and his wicked mother ludicrousness that we have seen in countless movies before.

Every character here is a carping, infantile stereotype. Not to mention that they all looked like they need a shower! And the idea of any kind of scene implying sex with George Wendt  shudder  is enough to make anyone gag! I watched the movie because Samuel West was in it  but I cannot understand why he would have accepted a role like this. Maybe he needed the money. Ian Tracey is a superb actor - the only one with a vague redeeming moment, but his talent is wasted here.

As for the rest of the plot  the three imbeciles trying to get their dope back  yawn - or Karl  who is dead, but who is actually a character very much alive in the minds of those left behind (almost like Rebecca in Alfred Hitchcock's masterpiece  although I am ashamed to even have thought to compare these two films), why even bother? Karl is so galling that you find the circumstances of his death gratifying.

By the end of this wretched movie, I thought they would all have been better off going down with him on that boat!


Not only was this the most expensive Canadian film ever shot in BC, but easily the worst, never seeing the light of day. The director is not even Canadian, but British, and boy does it show. We are all made out to be a bunch of over-sexed dope fiends and morons. The spirit of what it means to be Canadian is absent, and this is supposed to be the reason we fund this bunk. Of course the British character is normal. The rest are a crop of sitcom stereotype - can you say "Norm!!"? The cinematography ranges from pretty postcard images to murky indoor silhouettes. The actors always seem to be fidgetting. Are they as bored as the viewer, or is this the directors idea of cinema? Avoid this mess and check out some of Bruce Mcdonalds films. A true Canadian boy with something original to say cinematically. You won't be compelled to walk out on HIS films after 10 minutes.


Anyone that has see Tammuz's Child Eaters knows that this is a director that can do better. Let's hope it was not a case of too many hands in the pot (Telefilm anyone?)and that is was a case of second feature jitters. The characters are one dimensional and over used. The scenery is terrific however and showcases the Pacific Northwest beautifully.

The cinematography is great. Shot almost entirely outside, the images are crisp and beautiful. You can almost smell the wind blowing through the leaves.

Technically this movie is as sound as they come - it just lacks a heart.


A splendid example of how Hollywood could (and still can) take a masterpiece of literary fiction and stupidly foul it up.

In the case of "the Big Sky," writer Dudley Nichols and company arrogantly assumed they could improve upon a classic pioneer novel by the Pulitzer prize-winning author, A.B. Guthrie. In so doing, they removed the soul of the story and any edge and impact it may have had as a film adaptation.

The epic nature of Guthrie's book and the evolution of its main character, Boone Caudill, from a naive, Kentucky lad into a hardened and competent survivor/mountain man, has been replaced with a downscaled riverboat farce that bears little resemblance to the author's intent. In the movie version, Boone's presence is nothing except underwhelming.

Intriguing and even shocking plot elements that give Guthrie's novel impact and excitement have been removed for no apparent reason whatsoever. Most puzzling of all is the emphasis placed upon the Zeb Calloway character, who was an incidental, minor character in the book, only occupying a handful of pages. On the other hand, a very important and fascinating character, Dick Summers, the veteran pioneer, is missing altogether!!! It is also apparent that director Hawks decided the Zeb character in the movie, played by actor Hunnicutt, wasn't irritating enough. So Zeb/Hunnicutt was given a significant amount of time doing that obnoxious, voice-over narration that is the Hollywood short cut for incompetent screen writing, editing, and direction.

Some movies have actually improved upon the books upon which they were based (William Wyler's "Ben-Hur" is an excellent example). But this is horrible and depressing not only as an adaptation of a novel but as a film unto itself.

The story is dull and clichéd, and the characters - at least the ones that have not been edited out of the script - are just shallow and boring shadows of Guthrie's literary vision. And unfortunately, Kirk Douglas' star appeal, which could have helped lift this film, was scuttled by the milktoast role he was given.

If you can believe it, the film version of Guthrie's Pulitzer prize-winning sequel, "The Way West," also starring Kirk, is even worse.

In my opinion, "The Big Sky" further solidifies Howard Hawks' place as one of the most overrated, tepid directors in the history of cinema.


I'll give writer/director William Gove credit for finding someone to finance this ill-conceived "thriller." A good argument for not wasting money subscribing to HBO, let alone buying DVDs based on cover art and blurbs. A pedestrian Dennis Hopper and a game Richard Grieco add nothing significant to their resumes, although the art direction is not half bad. The dialogue will leave you grimacing with wonder at its conceit; this is storytelling at its worst. No tension, no suspense, no dread, no fear, no empathy, no catharsis, no nothing. A few attractive and often nude females spice up the boredom, but this is definitely a film best seen as a trailer. I feel sorry for the guy who greenlighted this thing. Good for late-night, zoned-out viewing only. You have been warned.


First of all, what is good in the movie ? Some pretty actress ? the exotic background ? the fact that the actors don't laugh while acting (I would have if I had been in their situation) ? I don't know. The storyline is simple : a catholic priest who does abstract painting tries to find out who (another abstract painter) killed his little brother, a male prostitute (raped by another priest when he was young...). I'm afraid there is nothing here to learn or to let think a little about serial killers, art or religion. Dennis Hopper is not very good here. This is the worst episode of the worst season of "profiler" (the serie) with replacement actors and unbelievable coincidences (the uncle is the policeman who, the girl who lives at another victim's house could have a baby with the priest, etc., etc).


This was an impulse pick up for me from the local video store. Don't make the same mistake I did. This movie is tedious, unconvincingly acted, and generally boring. The dialogue between the young priest and his uncle is particularly poorly written and delivered; I cringed at every scene they shared. Dennis Hopper makes a few sparse appearances and is his usual disjointed self; his role was clearly not a stretch for him. And although the movie is supposedly set in Puerto Rico, it feels a lot more like a Hollywood movie lot; all of the main characters are Caucasian and several tend to speak English with pseudo-Irish accents. Odd. Anyway, when you see this one on the shelf of your local video store, keep walking.


This movie was a mess. It had the absolute worst editing I have ever seen. It was almost like at the end of a scene the writer wanted to go to commercial, and the filmmaker added a second of black screen to fulfill the writers dream.

Under the messy direction and editing, there was a glimmer of something good. A good idea, a compelling spark. But somewhere it went wrong.

The story is about a quasi-psychic priest who is trying to solve a string of murders. The first thing that is hard to bite into is Richard Grieco as a priest. Well the part doesn't call for him to be a good priest and he succeeds rather well. The second problem is Dennis Hopper as the crazy bad guy. He always plays the crazy bad guy. Very ho hum.

Oh, a thought occured to me that maybe all the jumpy, horrible editing and disconnected plot was trying to add a sense of the confusion the character (Grieco) was experiencing. And just to prove that it was contrived they rolled the credits backwords. Not a good sign for any movie.


This "film" is the culmination of everything that is bad about modern film. unnecessary slow motion, unnecessary flipping/jumping/somersaults, unnecessary characters, unnecessary dialogue.... basically unnecessity. (is that a word? well, it's just been invented by I, Robot.)

What happened to practicality? (i.e. the car garage, the skin spray) the only tool that shows a combination of futuristic and realistic function is the card swipe at the coffee shop.

What happened to showing respect for women? (i.e. smith's character does nothing but degrade the doctor for the better part of the film, and yet she still "wants" him. WHERE IS THE TENSION? I'll tell you where, good looks and not admiration or common ground)

What happened to a detective that detects? Smith did nothing but sit around and feel sorry for himself, complaining to other people, and when they said something that sparked a thought he was off. this is such a lame way to get the story from point b-c-d-etc... it was OK once, but not several times in a row. (speaking of several times in a row, what was the "I'm snoring and not listening to you joke? Twice In One Scene?)

What happened to the small parts in a movie being somewhat meaningful and not just a tool to promote rescue scenes? Shia LaBeouf (the kid) is in the movie for a total of TWO SCENES, we know that A-he degrades women, and B-he knows Smith....... so of COURSE we should care about him and whether or not he comes to harm,

What happened to Hero's? let's just forget that there are people, women and children everywhere getting attacked by robots and selfishly save the only person withing my view that I have an acquaintance with. and why did he have to ramp his bike through the air, showing off, while the doctor was somehow able to reach the same distance in a matter of seconds on foot.

don't get me wrong, I'm all for spectacle. but I'm also all for a shred of realism and meaning.

I have to say I've never laughed quite so hard at a film in a long time. so thanks Alex.

I pray for the swing of the social pendulum back to simpler techniques, simpler stories and simpler everything else in films...... but mainly simpler techniques.

Big Budget Action films: "you so have to die"


In spite of the great future-design touches, the clever Asimov premise, and Will Smith's dependable cool performance, this movie doesn't live up to expectations. The clichés come thick and fast; (waking from a recurring nightmare, maverick cop has his badge revoked by hardass lieutenant, to list more would be spoiling it - you can see the end a mile off). This movie is also stagebound - you never feel that you have travelled anywhere; what's supposed to be a global disaster never leaves an obviously CGI Chicago. The robots themselves are good in closeup, but the 'crowd' scenes look more like bad Disney -the CGI is overdone again and again. And if you can destroy the robots by smashing them, why do they need to inject 'nanites'? You know it's a duff movie when stupid questions like that start to bother you before the climax. It could have been great, but it's less than the sum of its parts, mainly due to the utterly predictable plot that could have come from any action film of the last forty years.


This is probably the most boring, worse and useless film I have seen last year. The plot that was meant to have some philosophical aspects emerged to me as a very bad hollow copy of the matrix, with plenty of clichés: the lone wolf cop, good looking, psychologically disturbed, sleeping with his gun... + nice hard worker and shy, but good looking she-scientist, you add a 2 cent plot and you have I, Robot! I was terribly disturbed by the obvious advertising of brands like FedEx,Audi,converse etc. This movie stinks the commercialization and tend to be more a poor ad spot that unfortunately will not end after 30 sec. I wouldn't recommend this to my worse enemy, if you have some spare time, watch a good TV program instead or better read a nice book.


I just saw this film on DVD last night, and decided to check out the reviews this morning. It seems that "I, Robot" has polarized the critical viewing community here on IMDb (and given rise to a lot of insults and name-calling, too).

I find this somewhat surprising, as this film is not great (or even good), but neither is it terrible (or even really bad). What this film really is, is...depressing. Depressing that the US film-goer population is so ready to lap up insipid, clichéd re-heats, and acclaim them as spectacular new works. This film as "retread" written all over it, from the plot line (an uneasy mix of Asimov and modern-day uber-action) to Smith's character (a smart-mouthed cynic with a backbone of titanium), to the special effects (that borrowed from Matrix and a few others).

"I, Robot" is, sadly, quite possibly the perfect action movie for today's audience: superficial plot, insipidly snappy dialog, and lots and lots of adrenaline. Smith is mediocre, but we already knew that (he seems to be Hollywood's latest unsuccessful attempt to create a black Bruce Willis). The story has lots of holes in it, of all sizes, but I don't think most people drawn to this film are critically-minded enough to notice. Perhaps a blockbuster by today's standards, but very B-movie compared to true winners.


After perusing the large amount of comments on this movie it is clear that there are two kinds of science fiction movie-goers. There are the ones who are well read, extremely literate, and intelligent. They know the history of the genre and more importantly they know to what heights it can reach in the hands of a gifted author. For many years science fiction languished in the basement of literature. Considered my most critic to be little more than stories of ray guns and aliens meant for pre-pubescent teenagers. Today's well read fan knows well this history, and knows the great authors Asimov, Heinlein, Bradbury, and Ellison, who helped bring science fiction out of that basement. In doing so they created thought provoking, intelligent stories that stretched the boundaries and redefined the human condition. This well informed fans are critical of anything Hollywood throws at them. They are not critical for it's own sake, but look upon each offering with a skeptical eye. (As they should as Hollywood's record has been less than stellar.) To these fans the story must take supreme importance. They cannot be fooled by flashy computer graphics, and non stop action sequences. When the emperor has no clothes they scream it the loudest.

The second type of science fiction movie goer has little knowledge about the written aspect of the genre. (Look at many of the above comments that state "Well I haven't read the book or anything by this author...) Their total exposure to science fiction is from movies or the Scifi channel. They are extremely uncritical, willing to overlook huge plot holes, weak premises, and thin story lines if they are given a healthy dose of wiz bang action and awesome special effects. They are, in effect, willing to turn off their critical thinking skills (or maybe they never had them!) for the duration of the movie. Case in point, I Robot. While supposedly based on Asimov's short stories and named after one of his novels, it contains little of what Asimov wrote and even less of what he tried to tell us about humanity and our robotic creations. (Those of you that will run out and buy I, Robot will be very much surprised-this movie isn't even based on that story at all!)

The film has enormous plot holes, that at some points are stretched to the limits of credulity. I won't point them out. I won't spoon feed you. You need to practice you thinking skills and discover them for yourself. The characters, which are named after many of Asimov's characters, do not possess the critical intelligence that was a hallmark of his stories. The plot itself with all it's action sequences goes against everything that the author stood for. His belief that humanity possesses the capacity to solve problems using their minds, not their fists, is vital to understanding his vision of the future. In short, other than the name, their is very little of Isaac in anything about this movie. There will always be those uncritical (i.e. unthinking) who will state: "The movie doesn't have to be like the book. Due to the medium, movies sometimes require that changes be made." But what about a case where the movie never even tried to stay close to the book (or books) from the start? What if all they took from the written work was the title? This begs the question: Why tarnish a great body of work by slapping it's title on your vacuous piece of crap? Save money and don't buy the rights to the works. Title it something else. Don't use the character's names. Believe me no one will accuse you of plagiarism. In fact it won't matter what you title it to the unread moviegoer who accepts everything you throw at him. But it will upset those who read, who think, who are unwilling to simply let you give them a pretty light show.

I, Robot, like much of Hollywood's take on the genre, pushes Science fiction back down into that basement it lived in years ago. Hollywood could not do this alone. It takes an uncritical mindless audience that will accept puerile dredge like this.


I can't really think of any redeeming features of this utterly bad rendering on Asimov than the art direction. Forget the product placement disaster, the unconvincing performance from Will Smith and the gargantuan plot-holes. This wasn't only laughable and but painful to watch. Even the action was boring. A mixture of MTV inspired production values and utterly bad dialogue probably aimed at very small children.

What a shame that sci-fi this bad can still be made after we've had Bladerunner, Minority Report or to a lesser extent Dark City (by the same director). This one really belongs in the bottom 100 list. Truly awful.


Waiting to go inside the theathre with tickets in my hand, I expected an interesting sci-fi fantasy movie which could finally feed my appetite of movies regarding robot-technology, instead I went disappointed by each aspect of it, once more proving that stunning special effects can't help a boring plot, which by my opinion was the worse in this year. Acting in this movie also dissatisfied me, Will Smith didn't show anything new in this movie, yet I never saw his acting to change since "Men In Black" which was his only success by my opinion. He had to retire since than, not spoiling his name with titles like "I,Robot" and "Men In Black 2". 4/10


Del - "You are the dumbest smart person I've ever met."

Calvin- "Well,I had a brain, but they lost it in the re-writes."

I think what I find most egregious about this bastardization of Asimov's work was how the character of Susan Calvin was portrayed. In the books, she was actually one of the first strong female protagonists, able to think her way through a problem. Here she's just a damsel in distress, waiting to be rescued by Wil Smith.

There are passing references to Asimov's Laws of Robotics, but they are an afterthought to the CGI and action scenes.

Smith is likable, as he is in most of his films, but honestly, the story isn't that good. YOu figure it out long before these genius characters do.


This film was so disappointing. From the blurb that made me decide to see Phantom Love (why is it called this?)I had expected something arty and thoughtful with beautiful imagery. It did have some interesting images but these often seemed random and made no sense. In fact they seemed like they were inserted to fill in time. In the end the effect was listless.

I believe the film was meant to be atmospheric, but it just wasn't. The lack of a coherent plot did not help matters. You might say it was mysterious, but I think it was just incoherent with no atmosphere.

The main character seemed to be disturbed but the plot did not draw me in enough to care about her situation. Without looking at the cast list I would not have known that you see the main character as a child. The film has very little context for the time, place or character. I am not a prude but the sex scenes (there were several) seemed pointless and confused me further, I recognised Lulu but I was not sure if it was the same man, different men, a lover, her husband or was she a prostitute. It was only when I saw the credits that I discovered the hairy back was meant to belong to her lover. This film did manage to make what should have been shocking (dream sequences involving Lulu's mother) seem a bit boring.

The nail filing actually made more sense, as it did give some indication of Lulu's emotional state. I will not fault the actors as I don't they had a lot to work on.

I do not know if the lack of context or flow in the film was because of ineptitude or because it was pretentious but the end result was dull.

I can't be bothered talking about it anymore.


Lately they have been trying to hock this film late-night on cable TV commercials. Don't believe the hype. I was one of the unlucky people to see this stinker in theatres. This is, in my opinion, the 3rd Worst Movie of All Time, just behind Mac & Me (#1 Worst), and Jack Frost (#2 Worst), but I must admit, they are all close and all TERRIBLE! Really, nothing of this movie is funny, or disturbing, or anything else it claims to be so don't waste your money. The only thing it is good for is giving to your worst enemy. I'm not lying about that. Someone who you would love to kill or torture would be a prime candidate for this film. It is that awful. If you don't believe me then you deserve to suffer through the misery of watching this, which I doubt you can finish. Two Thumbs Enthusiastically Down.


This film stars, among others, "SlapChop" Vince Offer (who also wrote, edited and directed) and Joey Buttafuoco--not exactly names that scream out "quality". And with such uplifting skits as "Supermodels taking a dump" (it's exactly what it sounds like), a guy who robs a sperm bank (the "Rhymer"), necrophilia with a rotting corpse, black market fetuses (featuring a guy scooping what are supposed to be them out of a jar), lots and lots of gay jokes, a skit about a giant phallus who is a superhero and forced abortions. The skits are painfully unfunny (such as "Batman and Rhymer"), the acting not good enough to be considered amateurish and the film is crude just for the sake of being crude...and stupid. I truly believe a group of 8 year-olds could have EASILY made a funnier film with the same budget.

Apparently this film resulted in a lawsuit by "Slap Shot" Vince against the Scientologists. Frankly, I wouldn't know who to root for in this case!!! Apparently, he alleged that somehow Scientologists destroyed his reputation and sank this film. No matter that the film is repellent junk from start to finish and 99% unfunny (by comparison, Ebola is funnier)...and these are the nicest things I can say about the movie.

By the way, that IS Bobby Lee (from "Mad TV") wearing a diaper and participating in the dumb fake porno film. It's amazing his career could overcome this.


This movie shows a row of sketches, which partly pass over into one another. I realized the passing over late in the movie, at first it only irritated me.

Many of the episodes in this movie come along without any recognizable punchlines and simply try to wangle around that fact, using absurdity and obscenity. The attempt of it to stay comedy without any funny bits fails.

My personnel and maybe subjective result after watching this movie (My god, it hurts in my head every time I call it "movie"): A bold attempt to turn nothing into something great. But it failed. At least the director made something out of nothing. But it isn't something good.

Many movies didn't turn out as funny as they were planned, but this one tops them all. It's the real life manifestation of the worst case scenario of film making. No. To correct myself, it's even worse than that. A movie with gags so bad, that they aren't funny at all. It's not even fun to watch the lead-actor, writer and director (all three the same guy by the way) perish by drowning in the sea of bad movies. The movie is too bad for that.


It really impresses me that it got made. The director/writer/actor must be really charismatic in reality. I can think of no other way itd pass script stage. What I want you to consider is this...while watching the films I was feeling sorry for the actors. It felt like being in a stand up comedy club where the guy is dying on his feet and your sitting there, not enjoying it, just feeling really bad for him coz hes of trying. Id really like to know what the budget is, guess it must have been low as the film quality is really poor. I want to write 'the jokes didn't appeal to me'. but the reality is for them to appeal to you, you'd have to be the man who wrote them. or a retard. So imagine that in script form...and this guy got THAT green lit. Thats impressive isn't it?


How do I begin? This movie is probably one of the worst movies I have ever seen .It has no redeemable qualities .I just sat through this movie and it was a struggle.It failed to get even a single smile on my face.I find it hard to believe that anyone would distribute this horrible film. I felt that this movie was a failed attempt at distasteful humor. The only thing that was worth anything about this movie was the soundtrack, I'm pretty sure thats the reason I wanted to see this movie in the first place.I will wrap this up as I am going to try and forget the time I just wasted with this piece of crap. I will leave you with this warning. DO NOT WATCH THIS FILM ,IT SUCKS.


Hawked as THE MOST OFFENSIVE MOVIE EVER, GUARANTEED TO OFFEND EVERYONE- Guess what? It worked, I'm offended that we shelled out money to rent this. Two friends and I were bored and decided to see if all that bull about the movie that we saw on TV was true. Curse Comedy Central and all the other networks that pushed this garbage on us! It was by far the worst movie I've seen since Hollow Man. I generally avoid the crappy ones, but got sucked into this one. We have since beaten the prick who suggest we rent it, and his movie picking privileges have been revoked. There is nothing remotely funny about this movie...even the "adventures of dickman" scene was sophomoric at best.. Color me p***ed. Thought maybe the production value was crap for some important reason...no..it just sucked. NEVER WATCH THIS! for any reason whatsoever. Not even with copious amounts of illegal substance would this movie be funny. That's saying ALOT. Please for the love of all that is holy, if you cherish your sanity- never view this movie. It's many things- stupid, pointless, and worthless to name a few. But the main thing it was aiming for: offensively funny- it failed miserably. Crash and burn....


I have never seen a comedy that was this much of a chore to sit thru...not one laugh in it. Ok, maybe one little chuckle for the Michael Clarke Duncan bit as the big, black, bald gay virgin. But the rest of it was shockingly un-funny. On top of being void of any laughs the "skits" go on forever! Steer clear of this one if you value your time and money. DREADFUL!!! The worst!!!


Words cannot describe how utterly abysmal this movie is. It is a series of random, unfunny clips about everything from a stupid Batman spoof to a guy getting it on with an old dead lady (REALLY disturbing). The only remotely amusing thing about the Underground Comedy Movie is watching Joey Buttafuoco, the best actor in this movie. Also, it is rated NC-17, shunning away the only people that might tolerate it.


Imagine the worst skits from Saturday Night Live and Mad TV in one 90 minute movie. Now, imagine that all the humor in those bad skits is removed and replaced with stupidity. Now imagine something 50 times worse.

Got that?

Ok, now go see The Underground Comedy Movie. That vision you just had will seem like the funniest thing ever. UCM is the single worst movie I've ever seen. There were a few cheap laughs...very few. But it was lame. Even if the intent of the movie was to be lame, it was too lame to be funny.

The only reason I'm not angry for wasting my time watching this was someone else I know bought it. He wasted his money. Vince Offer hasn't written or directed anything else and it's not surprise why.


This movie goes beyond just being bad, it is definitively the worst movie I have ever seen in my entire life. Unless you yourself have a problem with necrophilia than you will not enjoy will not enjoy the scenes depicting it in this film, (if you can call it that).


First of all.....

What the hell? Why in the world are they trying to sell a low budget piece of crap on late night TV with the promise of disturbing, offensive sick garbage that any normal real human being with a soul couldn't watch.

What the crap is funny about a dog being injured, a grandma getting her head knocked off...a guy getting his hand blown to pieces and two girls going to the bathroom? what in the hell has this world come to that people find comedy in some thing so completely sick. Anyone who thinks this kind of material is funny, should not even be allowed to walk the earth.

But from what I hear its not even offensive...so...they promise comedy through demented piles of sick garbage...and they cant even pull that off.


The Underground Comedy movie is perhaps one of the worst comedies I've ever seen. I should have known it was going to be bad when the box had the phrase "guaranteed to offend" written on it... meaning that the filmmakers were going to focus more on grossing you out than making you laugh.

This movie is an amateurish jumble of childish skits, bad characters, and worse jokes... from the pathetic Bat-Man sketch to the painfully unfunny Arnold Shvollenpecker skit, they just aren't funny. The few skits that are a little funny are few and far between - watching Micheal Clark Duncan play a gay virgin, for example - but even they go on too long and get ruined from Vince Offer's ineptness at comedy.

Keep The Underground Comedy Movie underground... bury it!


Anyone who has watched Comedy Central around midnight in the past few years has probably seen ads for this movie. I first saw ads for this movie back in 2001. It looked like it could be funny, but I wasn't about to call up the number on the television screen and order it without seeing the movie first. I figured I would wait until the movie was available to rent at Blockbuster.

About a year and a half later, I was at Tower Records and in the "DVDS for less than $20" pile, there was a copy of this movie. Seeing that the DVD was only $6.99 I decided to buy it. I got home, put the disc in the DVD player, and waited for the laughs to start...and I waited some more. The laughs never came.

I'd have to agree with almost every other comment on this page when I say that this movie was horrible. Sick, desperately tasteless, and poorly written and directed, THE UNDERGROUND COMEDY MOVIE is an atrocious piece of garbage and is in my opinion the worst movie of all time. No stars.


Sometimes you wonder how some people get funding to create a movie as bad as this one. You can only stand about 5 minutes of this utter piece of garbage before you stomp back into blockbuster and demand your money back. I will now look at Michael Clarke Duncan with apprehension...why....he lent his name to this vermin.


Sure, we all like bad movies at one time or another, and we in fact enjoy them, This however, wasn't even a guilty pleasure, it was just crap. Some guy, vince offer, who is conceited enough to make himself the main character while probably got drunk/high--probably both--and thought it was a great idea to make a movie. He then proceeded to show his script to equally high/drunk individuals. Overall, this movie was so bad, predictable, and unoriginal I couldn't get through 20 minutes of it before I turned it off. It makes You Got Served look like Citizen Kane. Bat Man? WTF...Some guy that walks around with a bat, real original. Almost as good as calling him Fat Man, and having a fat guy walk around in a superhero outfit.


The Underground Comedy Movie, is possibly the worst train wrecks I've ever seen. Luckily I didn't pay for this movie, and my friend reluctantly agreed to watch it again siting that it was so awful but he needed to prove to me how awful it was. I love off color comedy. I figured at the least it would have that and I would be entertained. No, instead the acting was so awful, the "jokes" were extremely cheesy, and the plot was no where to be found. Maybe there wasn't supposed to be a plot so I can't hold that against this movie. It's pretty sad where the funniest thing in a comedy is an old woman having her head hit off by a bat.....by Batman...A man dressed in a baseball uniform wielding a bat. Hilarious. Simply genius. I got the feeling watching this movie that its creators made it and laughed hysterically with their friends about it. Perhaps this was full of inside jokes we just didn't understand. Or perhaps it's the worst piece of trash ever made and it should be locked away in a vault and dumped in the Arctic Ocean.

P.S. Don't buy this movie!


My brother is an avid DVD collector. He took one look at the cover (two models on toilets) and had to add it to his collection. I stayed up with him to watch what turned out to be likely the most cringeable movie (I use that term loosely) I've felt obligated to sit through. I dared not make eye contact with my brother, quite certain he must have been cursing the receipt in his clenched fist. The biggest name in the whole movie is Michael Clark Duncan who appears in one scene, which the "filmmaker" decided to show every take of (about four total) throughout the movie. In fact, the whole movie pretty much follows this suit. The fact that the DVD contained deleted footage was a shock. (I went to bed without viewing it, however). To no surprise at all, I found this disc without its case behind the TV about a week later.


I ended up watching this whole (very long) movie because I was fascinated by the sheer stupidity and naivity of it. It seems difficult to believe that so many famous people (Anthony Quinn, Lawrence Olivier, John Gielguld, Vittorio de Sica, etc.) would have willingly participated in this farce. But maybe in 1968 people really *were* so naive? The plot seems written by some confused Latin American Marxist priest with an agenda. There is a superpower conflict and the Russians are actually the good guys, with the Communist Party General Secretary being a nice and spiritual man, who, suddenly, after 20 years, sees the light and feels compelled to ease his bad conscience by releasing a prisoner priest from a Siberian gulag. The priest then promptly becomes the Pope by a series of coincidences. We are allowed to see the secret Vatican papal voting process which is portrayed in the most hillariously pious form you can possibly imagine.

Meanwhile, the communists in China achieved the usual socialist economic miracle of starving half of their country to death. To solve this minor hiccup on the relentless shining path towards communism they want to start a nuclear war (in order to justly distribute the Western capitalist riches to the poor workers of China).

Our good old comrade General Secretary gets a bit worried and calls the Pope just before his coronation to ask him to broker peace. They meet with the Chinese leader comrade Peng who looks and acts like a 15 year old boy. You will roll on the floor laughing about what people in 1968 thought the Chinese looked like. Comrade Peng demands that the Western capitalists must pay (which is quite logical after all, don't capitalists always have to pay for the madness of the socialists?), and that the Pope needs to sacrifice something, too, for the common altruistic cause of equality and social justice.

So when the Pope gets crowned in Rome, he pledges the entire wealth of the Catholic church world-wide to feed our poor Chinese brethren in Christ. And thus he saves the world from nuclear holocaust.

Apart from this, there are also some minor sub-plots, which, alas, provide little to redeem this incredibly bad movie. I'd give it three Oscars for stupidity.

By the way, Anthony Quinn looks quite unlikely as a Pope. He is much more plausible as Zorba the Greek.


*Warning - no plot spoilers ahead, but movie spoilers nonetheless...* My significant other rented this for me thinking it would be a terrific romance with an all-star cast. Wow - very, very wrong. This movie is an overdone, overwrought, and overly sentimental excuse to theatrically release a student film 15 years after it was shot! The copyright date on the box said 2005, yet during the very first flashback sequence I was looking at the clothes and hairdos that were supposed to be the early 1960s, and noticed that the girls especially were wearing late 80s/early 90s dresses and hairdos. It looked as if it had been shot a good 15 or 20 years before the rest of the film! I tried to convenience myself that it was a flashback, and therefore supposed to look old, but it looked WWWWWWWAAAAAAAAAAAAYYYYYYYYYYY more 80s than 60s or even 21st century trying to be 60s... then an adult coworker of the lead character turns up, and he looks just like the boy featured in the flashback sequences (yet it's a different, much older character whose youth is featured in the flashbacks). I was completely confused until I saw in the special features the short film included - it was all the flashback sequences, shot in 1990 as a complete student film of the same title as this movie! It also features commentary that includes the little boy all grown up (and indeed acting the co-worker in the 2005 scenes). Thus, this movie is just a shell of story woven around an old, re-cut student film put together as an obvious excuse to get it up to theatrical running time. The shell story, shot in 2005, is mostly about a man who has lost his wife and finds healing and redemption at the dance class that he promises a dying man he will attend in his stead (something about a promise made by the dying man in the early 60's to his girl that they would meet on the "fifth day of the fifth month of the fifth year of the new millennium - an excuse to shoot the segments around the old film in 2005?) These new scenes and plot might have been OK except the awful, overly sentimental score that repeats ad nauseum over almost every single new scene and the clichéd action that permeates the new movie. Don't bother. There's a reason why you've never heard of this movie even though it has a well-known cast - it's terrible.


If I had never read the book, I would have said it was a good movie. BUT I did read the book. Who ever did the screen write ruined the storyline. There is so many changes, that it wasn't really worthy of the Title. Character changes, plot changes, time line changes...

First off who was Henry and the investigator? They weren't in the story. Henry had Mitch's persona somewhat, but Mitch wasn't a cop. No you made it so Roz, helped 'sink ' his body and used that as Zenia's blackmail against Roz. The real so called blackmail was Roz thought Zenia was sleeping with her son and wanted her to get away from him. Her son was also being blackmailed because he was hiding being Gay from his mother. Her son wasn't even really mentioned in the story. Neither I don't believe was his lover, Roz's secretary.

Tony and West were not together in the beginning. He was actually with Zenia first while in college. The black painted apartment was their Idea, Tony just went to visit. This is where Zenia and Tony meet, become fast friends. Tony hides her love for West. Then Zenia left west, with cash from Tony, then West and Tony get together. Eventually marry, at some point West leaves Tony for Zenia again for a short time. Only to be heart broken again. Then go back to Tony. Zenia's blackmail for Tony was that Tony had written a test paper for Zenia. Now being a Professor at College she didn't want to let it get out. I will say the character who played Tony did it wonderfully.

Charis character was a blond, not that it really matters. Zenia didn't trick her about having cancer while Augusta was alive. No she was there when Charis had a lover named billy. Augusta's father, he was a draft dodger in the Vietnam war. Eventually after Charis takes care of Zenia for months for what was actually drug withdrawal. Zenia and Billy have an affair right under Charis's nose while taking care of them both. Then Zenia turns in Billy to the government, and leaves on the ferry with him. Not with Augusta, Charis was pregnant with her tho. Charis also had a split personality, Karen was her real name.

Zenia did not die from being cut up into piece's.... she fell or was possibly pushed (we never really knew) off the balcony and landed in a fountain. She had almost pure grade heroin in her blood and it was likely she took some not knowing and fell off as she OD'd. She was also really dieing of Cancer this time around.

It didn't show any of the childhood memories or anything that endeared the characters to the reader. The Book was striped down to its bare bones. Then re made in someone else's vision. Why couldn't you just write your own story along the lines of what you made the movie. It was different enough, and I'm sure could have been made more so.


I greatly enjoyed Margaret Atwood's novel 'The Robber Bride', and I was thrilled to see there was a movie version. A woman frames a cop boyfriend for her own murder, and his buddy, an ex-cop journalist, tries to clear his name by checking up on the dead woman's crazy female friends. It's fortunate that the movie script fixes Ms. Atwood's clumsy plotting by focusing on the story of these two men, victims of scheming women...

Heh. Okay, you got me. If these guys are mentioned in the book, and I'm pretty sure they're entirely made up for the movie, I'll eat the dust cover of my hardback copy. Apparently, the three main female characters of the novel aren't enough to carry the movie. Zenia's manipulations aren't interesting unless we see them happen to a man, and a man's life is screwed up. Roz, Charis, and Toni tell their stories -- to a man. Because it's not important if a man doesn't hear them.

I liked the characters in the book. It hurts to see them pushed off to the side for a man's story. I normally do not look for feminist angles on media, and I tried to enjoy the movie as is. If I hadn't read the book, I might have enjoyed the movie a lot more. So if you like the cop and the ex-cop, and you want to read more about them, you're out of luck. Read the novel, if you want to enjoy luscious prose and characterization subtly layered through a plot. It's the same plot: the movie excavated it, ironed it, and sprinkled it with male angst. It's like Zenia's revenge on Margaret Atwood.


When I saw that Mary Louise Parker was associated with this epic novel turned film, I was intrigued. Being a fan of the book, I assumed she'd be playing Tony, Roz, or Charis, but more so, I was intrigued to see how they would turn this very head-y, almost psychological (but not psychological thriller) novel in to a movie that would be accessible to those who hadn't read the novel, and that would be at least mildly satisfying for those who had. The book is a complex reflection of society, women, and modern life, and I was interested to see how they used the 3 different narratives that lead to the unfolding of the story in a film. What they actually did was a crime.

The biggest error and confusing issue is: Why would Oxygen, a network that advertises as being for women, take an amazing book about how complex, wonderful, and terrible women are and can be, and change the protagonist from 3 women to some dumb former cop with no real motive to be involved in the story? It seems like whoever adapted it took an easy way out by using this guy to straight up ask Roz, Tony, and Charis about how they knew Zenia and in doing that, they rushed through bulk of the book. In doing this though they muddied the story and cut everything that is great about the characters in it, aside from making it so the audience had no one credible to associate with. In the film, these women aren't people, they are characters.

In the book Zenia does fake her death, but the book mentions it to get this point across, while the film wastes 30-45 minutes focusing on this former cop running around and doing nothing of use. They tried to make this complex book an episode of Law and Order or CSI.

It turns out that Mary Louise Parker played Zenia, which was SO wrong. Zenia is a Catherine Zeta-Jones, Angelina Jolie, or maybe even a Scarlett Johnasson type. She is a woman men can't not adore, and a woman that women are intrigued and threatened by, but in a "keep your enemies closer" kind of way. And once she gets closer, she seems totally genuine and trust worthy, despite your better judgment. She's the kind of woman who, even when she loses, she wins: she's always still beautiful, still rich, and there are always still people out there who don't know her game.

In the film, Zenia didn't take Charis's man (the blonde American draft dodger who was using Charis in the first place...) but instead took August and tried to become her legal guardian (and apparently came back to be her Lesbian lover as a lingering kiss at the coffee shop implies). And Zenia did kill the chickens before leaving with August, but it made no sense since all of the build up to it was removed. It's was as if whoever wrote the screenplay was grasping at straws to satisfy those of us who read the book, but I think had I not read the book, I would have spent the whole movie confused, if I had bothered to stick with it at all.

And Roz's husband was dead before Zenia came in to the picture (which was weird since Zenia took Roz's business AND home life in the book, which is why Roz hated her so much) and she and Zenia had conspired to kill Roz's husband years and years back. And according to the film Tony and West had been dating forever...even at the party where Zenia and West (in the book) had painted the whole place black and they made Tony seem like this totally with it (and evil, bitchy) person who was always respected by everyone for her intelligence and popular for it. Tony's character was SO wrong in this film...she seemed a little psycho and like the mastermind behind whatever conspiring was going down as opposed to the kind of gawky, mildly reclusive teacher that she was in the book. The film basically implied smart women are evil, beautiful women are evil, powerful women are evil, and women who teach yoga are off their rockers.

They basically tried to make it so Zenia wasn't necessarily as awful as she was in the book, and then, in the end, the three women convince this former cop (who, of course in the process of researching this, meets Zenia and has an affair with her that is supposed to end with them moving to Barbados or something ridiculous, which of course Zenia bails on) to hide Zenia's body (which they found splat at the hotel she was staying at, but the film implies that one of the three women pushed her over the balcony, or they conspired together to do it...) and then Zenia also managed to take all of Roz's money in the process. By the end of the film I was only half paying attention between commercials b/c it had spiraled so far out in space from what it could and should have been.

If you aren't confused by this breakdown of the film, then maybe you would like it, because I have read the book and seen the movie, and from the movie alone I am ridiculously confused. It was terrible. I get that making a film out of that book is quite a task, but if you are going to take on the task, you should start by determining what in the book is unnecessary, instead of creating some useless character to be our Alice in wonderland.

Are there really no fluffier books that Oxygen could be making at least half decent TV movies of?


I don't know what Margaret Atwood was thinking to allow this movie to have the same name as her book. I've always been a big fan of The Robber Bride and was so excited to learn there was a movie in the works. I am aware that the translation of book to movie isn't perfect but this movie was the worst ever. The names of the women are correct and some of the back story is correct but that is about it. I feel like I lost a good portion of my time trying to make it through this movie. This really should have been a mini-series to tell the story the way it was written.

The actors for Roz, Tony, Charis and Zenia were well-chosen even though I was skeptical at first about Mary-Louise Parker. I only wish they'd had a better script to work with because this really had nothing to do with the book at all.


I watched this movie for its two hours and have absolutely no idea what it's about. Somebody got murdered or maybe they didn't and maybe somebody did it or maybe they didn't. This brought back memories of the good old days (bad old days?) when all CBC Canadian movies were stinkers. Lately stinkers have been the exception but this confused hodge podge of trendy feminism, mind reeling flash backs and mumbled dialogue makes up for lost time. I've never found Margaret Atwood's books easy to read. This movie continues that fine Canadian tradition. It isn't easy to watch. Maybe the trendy folks at the chi chi Toronto cocktail parties will pretend they liked it. Us folks in the boonies are a little less pretentious.


When this play was first shown by the BBC over 30 years ago, it would have been something quite different for the time. So therefor some people would have found it quite scary, and may well have been impressed with the special effects?

Looking at the play in this day and age, It doesn't seem to be all that scary anymore, even the special effects can leave a lot to be desired.

Would a train really be allowed to pass a RED LIGHT into a dark tunnel? I don't think so......but if you watch this play again, you will observe that the first train that enters the tunnel, rushes straight through the RED LIGHT! (maybe that's how it was in dickens time)?

You will also notice that the footpath that leads down to the Signal Box is very steep and in a poor state. Surely there would have been a series of proper steps with handrails for the Signalman to climb up or down into the cutting. (i can't help but notice things like that)

I will not take anything away from the acting, both Denholm Elliott (signalman) and Bernard Lloyd (the traveller) gave wonderful performances.

I am not at all sure what is going on......I mean was the ghost the traveller, or what??? Does anyone really fully understand this rather confusing story??? (well maybe i am the only one that don't)???

To sum up.....

The play has a wonderful atmosphere throughout, with great character. It suffers from not being that scary these days, and a little if not very confusing in places, and has some rather unusual signalling practises....

Thanks for reading my review.


Movie had some good acting and good moments (though obviously pretty low budget), but bad rating due to basic premise being badly developed. The main point of conflict between the two leads doesn't play out in a realistic manner at all. There are a few scenes where they disagree because of it, but no discussions of any great depth that would explain how they can be together while seeing the world so differently, especially since the employment of Glenn is so wound up in this part of his life (and Adam is active enough with his that he supports it with time and money.) Also, several times Glenn is portrayed negatively for being the way he is (apologizing to Adam for his past) while Adam is shown to be upstanding and "traditional," which the film proclaims to be the "good" way in the end. I don't like being preached to like that. I attended a discussion session with the director after viewing LTR, and he said that he presented this conflict between them because, if he was in Glenn's shoes (and he said he does in real life relate to Glenn's view) that he could never date someone with Adam's views. Well, then, I think he should have done a much better job explaining how Glenn could do it in the film. Also, director said he directed this, his first movie, only after reading (Directing For Dummies.) Directing was not that bad, but far from a top notch effort. I've seen worse, but I rarely leave films feeling this frustrated.


Or listening to, for that matter. Even the soundtrack is a bore.

Honestly, this isn't the worst gay movie I've seen (that would be Regarding Billy), but it's down there very close to the bottom of the barrel.

This thing drags and drags and drags. It's not that the plot is inane--in the hands of a good writer it might have worked . . . it certainly could have been much more entertaining. There's not one plot point you can't see coming for ten miles down the road. The dialog is flat. The jokes are old. To add insult to injury, it's full of one-dimensional, stereotypical gays.

Nothing in this movie convinced me that the situation or the relationship of the two leads was possible, much less real. There was no chemistry, no dynamic, in fact no evidence of why the leads love each other . . . we're just told they're in love. Hard to figure when they have nothing in common and aren't compatible sexually. They like the same book? Huh?

The acting is not totally bad, but the pacing is excruciatingly slow. I mean, almost Jarmusch- slow, but without Jarmusch quality. In fact, that would be a good barometer for you. If you like Jarmusch films, avoid this one.


A truly frightening film. Feels as if it were made in the early '90s by a straight person who wanted to show that gays are good, normal, mainstream-aspiring people. Retrograde to the point of being offensive, LTR suggests that monogamy and marriage are the preferred path to salvation for sad, lonely, sex-crazed gays. Wow! Who knew? The supporting characters are caricatures of gay stereotypes (the effeminate buffoon, the bitter, lonely queen, the fag hag, etc.) and the main characters are milquetoast, middle-class, middlebrow clones, of little interest.

As far as the romantic & ideological struggles of the main couple are concerned, there's not much to say: we've seen it all before, and done much better.


Words cannot begin to describe how blandly terrible this movie is. I wish it were "so bad it's good," but it's not. It's just dull, lifeless, and boring. It's so bad I couldn't even laugh at it.

In response to other posters, Anne-Marie Frigon is not the highlight of the movie. The only person less charismatic is the director Brett Kelly, who as a true statement on vanity, cast himself as the male lead. They both look like inbreeds, sister and brother.

The gal, Sherry Thurig, is a looker. The complete opposite of Anne-Marie - attractive. This girl is tall and willowy, and can act. Although you can tell she's holding back.

All the actors seem to be holding back, especially the supporting male, Mark. I've seen less wood in a rain forest, but he's still better than Kelly. Why would Kelly keep his actors from acting? Is he really that bad a director? Everyone else has summed the story up perfectly - there isn't one. Kids are kidnapped and Kelly steps in poo to solve the crime. I know how he felt stepping in the poo, it's how I felt after watching his movie.

Yes, I tried to get my money back from the rental store. This is a home movie best left to be seen by the friends of the director (and if you search them out, you'll see those same friends were the one who gave the movie positive marks).


Usually when a movie receives a vote of one it is because someone simply dislikes it and is annoyed it doesn't have a lower rating, and so decides to drag it down as much as they can instead of just giving it a low rating. This is not the case here.

Bonesetter is a perfect example of a 0/10 film. It does nothing right and it doesn't have the chance to because it doesn't really attempt to do anything. There are strands of a bad D&D novel kind of plot which doesn't hold together and a complete lack of any kind of acting throughout. It is clear that nobody involved in this project gave it any kind of serious effort, because even a completely patently untalented persons' hard work would amount to more. A truly awful film.


I live in Ottawa where this film was made and I really wish it hadn't been. This is one God-awful flick. I really try and support independent films but there is this stigma attached to anything indie and that stigma is: Indie Films Blow. Well, this film does nothing to shed this curse. The actor, writer, director Brett Kelly does little to contribute to the genre, rather he re-hashes tired clichés from movies past. I am really tired of menacing evil looking characters that lurk in the shadows and prey on the unsuspecting, it's way too overdone.

I can remember one scene in particular right near the end of the flick where the whole scene is lit with car headlights. Now some may say that this was an effect used to create mood and tension, but sadly it was to showcase the shoestring budget of this movie. As well for a movie that dares to call itself horror, a viewer will find themselves hard pressed to find any actual gore, other than a few scenes with corn syrup and red food colouring.

The biggest thing that drags this film down is the pacing and the lack of character development, the basic plot is that children are being kidnapped and the parents must track down this Bonesetter fellow before a certain time in order to get their kids back. Not that this concept bugs me, but, I didn't really find it believable that when the two main characters, both who have lost children can find time to make out with each other. This is done in such a short time span that it's inconceivable, my first priority would be to get my daughter back and at least get to know the lady before making out with her.

The last point that I have is.... and I won't hold this against Kelly, but the movie is shot entirely on boring, emotionless video and that really takes away from any tense moments that would have just oozed style on film. Although if this movie were given a million dollar makeover and redone the story and boring acting and lame everything could not keep this movie afloat. My only hope is that something happens to prevent Brett Kelly from making a sequel, which has been reported on his website, a sequel that was half written in one sitting.

Lord help us all.


A terrible film which is supposed to be an independent one. It needed some dependence on something.

This totally miserable film deals with the interactions among Irish people. Were they trying to imitate the wonderful film "Crash?" If so, this film crashed entirely.

There is just too much going on here culminated by a little brat running around and throwing rocks into buses and cars which obviously cause mayhem.

The film is just too choppy to work. One woman loses her husband after 14 years to another while her younger sister is ripped off by a suitor. This causes the former sister to become a bitter vetch and walk around in clothes not worth believing. The older sister also becomes embittered but soon finds romance.

Then, we have 3 losers who purchase masks to rob a bank. Obviously, the robbery goes awry but there doesn't seem to be any punishment for the crooks. Perhaps, the punishment should have been on the writers for failure to create a cohesive film.


This movie blows - let's get that straight right now. There are a few scene gems nestled inside this pile of crap but none can redeem the limp plot. Colin Farrel looks like Brad Pitt in "12 Monkeys" and acts in a similar manner. I normally hate Colin because he is a fairy in general but he's OK in this movie. There were two plot lines in this movie-= one about a kid who throws rocks through windshields of moving vehicles and the other about a woman with a moustache. Let's face it- this movie has no freaking idea of what it wanted to say or where it wanted to go. THe characters story lines intertwine on some levels but are in no means worthy of being included in a script. The whole thing is weak and pointless and then there is an occasional OK scene. But overall- Don't bother unless you love irish accents so much that you can watch mediocrity and it is rescued by everyone sounding like the Lucky Charms elf -an American fetish that has catapulted some truly crappy movies to success.


I'm Irish and I've been living in Denmark for a while so I was looking forward to going home last week so I could see Intermission. And I will go on record as saying:

THIS FILM IS AWFUL.

It is not quite as bad a something like "The Most Fertile Man in Ireland" but it definitely does not stand up there with other Irish films such as The Commitments, I Went Down or Michael Collins.

Some aspects of the film are actually quite funny, such as Colm Meaneys American-style garda. But the film itself is shot completely wrong. The bouncing around of the camera and the constant zoom-in, zoom-out tries to give the film an edgy look as if it were a gritty drama. But it isn't. This is an Irish Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels and it should be shot like this. It should have smooth movement from one shot to the next. The film just looks sloppy and thrown together.

The performances are okay, given the awful script. A friend of mine said to me like it was like they just followed Colin Farrell around Dublin for a week. He gives a decent display as a Dublin Dirtbag, but it no way compares to his performances in Minority Report, Tigerland or Phone Booth. The best performance was from Dierdre O'Kane who plays a sexually frustrated middle-aged woman who has just been dumped by her bank manager husband for a younger woman. I think she should leave her god-awful stand-up and focus more on her acting.

All in all, its does in no way live up to the expectations put on it by the Irish press or deserve to be even considered as one of the best Irish films ever.

I'm expecting a backlash from these comments because most people I have spoken to have said it was great. But before you reply, ask yourself: Would think so highly of this movie if it was set in England or America?


If you loved "Pulp Fiction" and like hand held cameras you should love this film. I liked the quirky story (even though I feel that "Pulp Fiction" was the most over-rated movie since "The English Patient") and found the characters unrealistic but interesting. It's not "On the Waterfront" or "Citizen Kane" and is burdened by European pretentiousness. But the worst part by far is the hand held camera. It is so distracting and annoying I found myself waiting desperately for the movie to end. I don't know why new directors think this method of filming is so great. If you are prone to motion sickness, stay away, the hand held camera will have you nauseous in about 10 minutes.


This was no Trainspotting or Guy Ritchie film. It was a big wannabee. It wanted to be an edgy, nervous-laughter, urban-life affirming film, but it's more of a camera jerky, mess. It's a lot easier to imitate something else, than to create a real story with real characters. From the beginning, I couldn't care less about the characters or what they were involved in. They were always always hitting, pissing, or crying on each other. Only, there wasn't any substance to what they were doing. The dialog between characters is meant to be hip, revealing, instead it comes out trite, and one scene after another is predictable. I know there are viewers out there that really liked this movie, so I could be wrong.


How Irish critics rave about this movie is beyond me. Overacted by the usual band of Irish actors dragged out for every Irish movie. Terrible script, with forced character quirks (the brown sauce). Romanticising all that is bad about Dublin. The attitude of 'ah, it's a dump but sure isnt it great all the same'. Plenty of tidbits purely for American audiences (the supermarket boss and his horribly forced catchphrase). And the nail in the coffin was Colm Meaney's character. A great actor forced to play this part that could've been written by a five year old. Cringeworthy stuff. The best thing about this movie is Farrell, and it's a bad when you have to say that. Well, at least he wasnt putting on his dreadful American accent. International Audiences be warned: stay at home and watch Snatch and Lock Stock. You'll have a better time. Intermission is a walk-outer


This is absurd - aside from the fellow Australian who has reviewed this flick, I can't help but think that everyone else who has submitted a review so far was some way involved in the production of Elektra, considering how generous they were with their praise.

Admittedly I'm not really a fan of comic-book-to-movie conversions so I didn't go in with many expectations, yet still I found Elektra to be incredibly underwhelming. The thing that irked me the most was the fact that there was SO MUCH in this film which went by unexplained, that left you thinking "huh, what relevance does that have to the plot?" or "so how did that aspect of the character come about?" I can only hope that these are things which are perhaps explained somewhat in Daredevil, which I have no intention of seeing.

Furthermore, the behaviour of the characters in this film appear to do an about-face at random moments to suit the storyline, and don't even get me started about the utterly pointless romantic sub-plot. I'm also (still) scratching my head over the fate of Cary-Hiroyuki Tagawa's character, which seems to have gone by unexplained.

If I can give kudos to this movie for anything it would have to be the fantastic locations in which it was shot, but otherwise I gained little enjoyment from Elektra. I know we're supposed to suspend our disbelief for fantasy/action films, but almost everything in this film was so improbable or confusing (even by action film standards) that it simply frustrated me.

Well, hell, at least Jennifer Garner looks damn good.


Perhaps I'm out of date or just don't know what Electra is like in current publications... But the Electra that I read was far more manipulative and always seems to have a plan. She usually used others to do her dirty work and more often than not some sort of double cross was involved. Just when you think you have it all figured out she pull the wool over your eyes and gets her way.

This movie was fairly weak on the dialog, the acting wasn't particularly convincing, and the action was spotty. I was really looking for something more along the lines of Frank Miller's book "Electra Assassin." Which is much darker than anything in this movie.

Special effect where cool, action was interesting at times, but more often than not the story and plot was slow or illogical. Tha Hand was not menacing enough, and Electra was not..... bitchy enough. She's the girl you love to hate... but in this story, I just didn't care either way.


*** THIS CONTAINS MANY, MANY SPOILERS, NOT THAT IT MATTERS, SINCE EVERYTHING IS SO PATENTLY OBVIOUS ***

Oh my God, where do I start? Well, here - this is the first time I have ever come home from a movie and said "I have to get on IMDb and write a review of this NOW. It is my civic duty." Such is the badness of this flick.

*begin digression* But let me just state one thing before I start. I'm not some Harvard-art-major-film-noir-weenie (in fact, I went to the college at the other end of Mass. Ave in Cambridge, the one where the actual smart people without rich daddies and trust funds go, which should put me squarely in the nerd-who-would-obsessively-love-comic-book-films census group, and still I hated this film...). My viewing preference is for the highbrow cinematic oeuvre that includes the Die Hards, Bond flicks, Clerks, and The Grail. I wish the Titanic had never sunk, not so much for the lives lost, but so we wouldn't have been subjected to that dung-heap of a film. And the single and only reason I will watch a snooty French art film is if there is a young and frequently disrobed Emmanuelle Beart in it. I even gave Maximum Overdrive one of its precious few 10s here on IMDb, for God's sake. So I'm as shallow as they come, therefore I'm not criticizing this film because I'm looking for some standard of cinematic excellence - it's because Elektra stinks like a three-week-old dead goat. *end digression*

OK, there's so much badness here that I have to try to categorize it. Here goes:

MS. GARNER: One of the compelling reasons a male would want to see this flick is to see lots of hot JGar (I have no idea why my wife wanted to). I think that between this and "Finding Nemo", the latter was the sexier film. You know the red outfit she's advertised wearing in every freaking ad you see? You see her in it TWICE - once at the beginning, once at the end. Bummer. In the rest, she basically looks like what Morrissey would look like if he were a female - lots of pouting and black clothes. Which brings me to the incredible range of expression JGar shows in her acting - ranging from "pouting" all the way to "pouting and crying". Oh my God, you'd think she was being forced to date Ben Affleck or something horrible like that. Um, wait...

THE BAD GUYS/GAL: They show about the same range of expression and acting ability that you'd expect from a slightly overripe grapefruit. At least next to JGar's performance, it doesn't stand out too badly. One guy's role is to stand there and be huge, another's is to stand there and have stuff come out of him, and the woman's role is to stand there and breathe on and/or kiss people. They manage to pull these incredible feats off. The main bad guy has the most difficult role of all - he has to SIMULTANEOUSLY a) appear angry and b) appear Asian. He does a fine job at this. I think there was a fifth bad guy/gal, but my brain is starting to block parts of this movie out in self-defense.

PLOT TWISTS! This movie has about as many surprises as a speech at the Democratic National Convention. Let's just put it this way - my wife, who has only been in the U.S. for half a year and speaks only a small amount of English - whispered this to me when the girl first appears in JG's pad, and I swear to God I am not making this up: "She go to house to kill girl. And father too." And this is BEFORE THE FATHER HAS EVEN APPEARED ON THE SCREEN. Now my wife isn't stupid, but she isn't being courted by Mensa for her gifts, either, and she's had zero exposure to Daredevil or the comic book genre. And she figured this out in .00015 seconds with no prodding and no prior information. Such is the blatant obviousness of this film.

RARELY-BEFORE-SEEN STUPIDITY! OK, so there's this big dude in the film. He can take a chestful of shotgun blast and brush off the shot like it's lint, and he can take a vicious Electra stab to the chest and just bend the metal (or melt it - or something - more defenses kicking in, thank God). But JG jumps on his head, and he explodes? An Achilles noggin? OK! Such is the mind-numbing stupidity of this film.

Ack. I'm starting to feel a cerebral hemorrhage coming on, so I have to stop. But you have been warned. If you have to intentionally slash your own tires to prevent yourself from going to see this movie, DO IT. And if Armageddon is going to come, please let it be >before< this comes out on DVD.


Believe me, I like horror movies. I like science fiction movies. I like independent films. And, I like low-budget, B movies.

Sometimes, I even like bad acting, plodding scripts, wooden lines, improbably situations, and the like. However, I did not like Christmas on Mars.

It just doesn't work on so many levels. For all the reasons listed previously, and many more. That includes the nonsensical, blatant use of images of female genitalia. And the many allusions to male genitalia, in a very Freudian way.

I am convinced this is purely from ineptitude. As opposed to some attempt at doing something really different. I mean any movie that takes years to film, just cannot keep up the level of congruity and focus demanded by modern audiences.

I had hoped that the whole movie was just a dream or hallucination by the main character. However, sadly, it was meant to have happened, as we saw things unfold on screen.

About the only kindness that I can express, is that the image at the end was stupendous. If this had been used at the beginning, instead of the end, it could have allowed the film to take off where 2001 ended...

To bad they didn't try that instead. I just don't understand what was so important about this film that it even had to be made. Was it the plot? Surely, it couldn't be. Was it the characters? I doubt it; I mean, I could live without knowing about Ed 15. Was it the dialog? Emphatically, no. The music? Perhaps, but more-likely the unvarnished ego of the principals needing to be stroked.

Much better efforts have died on the cutting room floor.


A friend once told me that an art-house independent film ran in a cinema when- upon the closing of the film - audiences were so enraged they preceded to tear up the cinema seats. Of course, my imagination ran amok, trying to conjure up the contents of such a piece of work. Well,now my imagination can be put to rest.

I am a lifelong Andrei Tarkovky fan and an ardent admirer of his work. I have come across many people who thought Tarkovsky's films are slow-moving and inert. Opinions being what they are, I found this not to be true of the late director's wonderful works, which are wrought with meaning, beautiful compositions, and complex philosophical questions. Upon hearing Aleksandr Sokurov called the heir to Tarkovsky, I was excited to experience his films.

With the exception of the open air ride through the fields (Stalker), this movie has no kinship to anything Tarkovsky has done. It does not seem to possess the slightest meaning, even on a completely mindless level. It's supposedly "gorgeously stark" cinematography is devoid of any compositional craft. There is a no balance, no proportion, and the exposure meter seems to be running low on batteries in the freezing snow. The main character is so inept and indecisive, it makes you wonder whether his father might have been alive if he made up his mind sooner.

I am also not adverse to non-plots or story lines that progress on multiple non-linear fashion. But there isn't even a non-story here. One must surely enter the viewing of this film with a shaved head if one were to exit it with nothing gained and nothing lost, as hair-pulling would be the only possible answer to a pace that could make a Tarkosky time sculpture look as if Jerry Bruckheimer had filmed a Charlie Chaplin short.

I won't rule out that this may be one of Sokurov's stinkers (Tarkovsky's Solaris), but to conclude that he is one of Tarkovsky's heir-based on this film- would be to call Paris Hilton the successor to Aristotle. C'mon guys, don't be afraid to say it. No amount of big impressive words is going to magically bring this corpse of celluloid back to life. I don't profess to fully understand Russian culture and I probably don't have Russian values, but I immediately picked up on Tarkovsky's work as something magical, a treasure and a gift to viewers.

If it didn't have Sokurov's name on it, and it aired on say, Saturday Night Live, I'm pretty sure nobody would "read" all these magnificent analysis into this wet noodle of a flick.


I'm actually watching this film as I write this . . . If the following comments "prove my lack of development as a true, artistic film maker", then so be it . . .

But . . . I thought (am still thinking as I'm presently viewing) that this film . . . to put it mildly, is very, very overrated. Again, very.

It looks like a really, really bad student film done by a someone with beyond extremely limited resources . . . and who didn't pay that much attention to detail.

I don't want to go on and on regarding all the different ways that I find this film lacking, but . . . well . . . I just don't get it (rememeber, I fully admit that maybe it's ME that's the idiot here - not the film maker - for not getting this "piece of imaginative genius") . . . I rented this on a whim because the reviews were very, very outstanding . . .

Sheesh . . .


I was unlucky enough to have seen this at the Sidewalk Film Festival. Sidewalk as a whole was a disappointment and this movie was the final nail in the coffin. Being a devout fan of Lewis Carroll's 'Alice' books I was very excited about this movie's premier, which only made it that much more uncomfortable to watch. Normally I'm enthusiastic about modern re-tellings if they are treated well. Usually it's interesting to see the parallels between the past and present within a familiar story. Unfortunately this movie was less of a modern retelling and more of a pop culture perversion. The adaptation of the original's characters seemed juvenile and usually proved to be horribly annoying. It probably didn't help that the actors weren't very good either. Most performances were ridiculously over the top, which I assume was either due to bad direction or an effort to make up for a bad script. I did not laugh once through out the duration of the film. All of the jokes were outdated references to not so current events that are sure to lose their poignancy as time goes by. Really, the only highlight of the film was the opening sequence in which the white rabbit is on his way to meet Alice, but even then the score was a poor imitation of Danny Elfman's work. Also, I'd have to say that the conversion of the croquet game into a rave dance-off was awful. It was with out a doubt the low point of the film.

What a joke. Don't see this movie. After its conclusion I was genuinely angry.


I went to see it in hopes of some good old fashioned Alice Entertainment.Once I realized I would not be getting that,I watched it for a pretty well made movie (in terms of filming,and yeah..that was it).But aside from it having a good film quality,considering I had been watching grainy movies all day long,there was nothing good about that movie.

He killed 42.Why were Tweedle Dee and Dum played by Mudler and Scully?Serisouly,Who can answer that for me?Who can answer anything awful about this movie for me.

I agree with whoever said it was just one big long inside joke for the staff.That's all it seemed to be.

Poor Mr.Carroll.I'm so sorry somebody did that to his wonderful tales.


This movie is terrible but it has some good effects.


Though the movie may have been "true" to Lewis's book (in that the script was basically word-for-word, verbatim), it failed to capture any of the grandeur that would otherwise be associated with an epic story like this. The mythical creatures (unicorns, centaurs, griffins, ghouls, ghosts) are *drawn* in, and as in the previous review, the green-screen flying sequence was very hard to swallow. I nearly laughed to death when I saw the humanoid beavers with their giant stiff suits and buck teeth; I nearly cried when I heard the wolf's "howl--" a man in a grey fuzzy suit basically shrieking as loudly and as girlishly as he possibly could.

All of the acting is tremendously forced, especially that of little Lucy Penvensie... I could only take so much indignation, desperation, and buck teeth in the (what felt like) fourteen hours of watching the movie. The actress who plays the White Witch, in all her histrionics, seems that she'd be more at home on stage, where a booming voice, spread arms, and a valiant effort at something Shakespearian would be more than welcome.

The sets feel claustrophobic, whether the scenes are taking place indoors or outdoors. Indoors, it's as if BBC could only afford to spend $100 on constructing a set, and so it is very small, and all the characters are constantly huddled together. The White Witch's castle is a run-down, rotting countryside English castle filled with Styrofoam statues and bad lighting. When the Penvensie children are wandering through the woods-- actually, *any* scene in the woods-- feels like they are simply wandering around in circles.

The only thing that looks decent in the film is Aslan, but you can bet that BBC probably blew the film's entire budget on building the mechanical feline. It looks great when it's standing still and before it starts speaking, but once it starts moving, you can't help but pity the poor man who has to be the rear-end in the lion suit.

Yes, if you are a hardcore Narnia fan, you may want to see this version, simply because it preserves every word that Lewis ever wrote-- but Lewis was certainly no screenwriter, and a lot of the dialogue feels chunky and awkward when on screen. During the scene in which the children are at the Beavers' and getting ready to flee from the wolves, Mrs. Beaver's incessant, "oh, just ONE more thing, dearies, and then we will be ready to go," punctuated by the children's simultaneous cries and sighs and moans of "NO, Mrs. Beaver, PLEASE!" -- a scene of comic relief, so incongruous (they are supposed to be FLEEING from imminent danger, not wondering about whether to pack the sewing machine or not), detracts from the drama that the scene might otherwise have. In fact, the whole movie is peppered with directing faux pas such as these.

I would recommend seeing the new Narnia (Disney 2005). The new movie, with updated effects, spectacular computer animation, great timing all around, and a gorgeous and scene- stealing White Witch (who plays her part with all the subtle evil of a seasoned politician, as opposed to a shrieking banshee) captures all of the grandeur and the magnificence of the world of Narnia without detracting the least bit from Lewis's original vision (I think). Lucy is a lot cuter (NO buck teeth, YAY!), as are the beavers (and realistically-sized), and bratty BBC Edmund has nothing on the divine, Desperately-Hungry-for-Acceptance-Insecure-and- Angsting-with-an-Inferiority-Complex Edmund that the new Disney version fronts.

Unless you're the type who enjoys wasting time by making fun of campy movies, I would not recommend this film to anyone.


Ouch! They don't come much worse than this horrid adaptation of C. S. Lewis's beloved novel. While the adaptation is very true to the novel, the acting is simply awful and the sets and special effects are on a scale equivalent to a school play. I've read that the budget for this miniseries was the grandest that the BBC has ever given at the time, but surely they could have scraped together a bit more than the $2 that it looks like this was filmed for. The worst effect of all is Mr. Beaver. I know computer effects weren't at the level necessary or even cost effective at the time, but the costume store man in a suit look was horrid. Better to have just cut the character from the film than do that to the role! Avoid this at all costs.


I'm a fan of the series and have read all 7 books. I wanted to see this just to see how it was done. All i can say, is that the only people who should watch this are ones who have already read the series and are curious about it. Its pretty bad, and will turn you off reading them. Not to be mean, but Lucy is so ugly it detracts from the movie. Was she the directors daughter? Seriously, I'm sure the beavers in the movie were jealous of her teeth. She had an overbite that would put any beaver to shame. The movie just loses so much in translation. CS books don't translate as easily as the Tolkein LOTR books, or even Harry Potter.

One thing they did right! Aslan! very well done. Although the other human actors with painted faces ( beavers, wolf) look silly, Aslan was really well done since it was not just a human actor walking around. ( i guess its like that old horse custume? 2 people inside? ) Also, i would be curious what kids think of this movie. Maybe they would enjoy it? But as for adults, safe bet they wont, even if a CS fan.


Having watched this after receiving the DVD for Christmas 2005, I came here to pan it -- but after reading the other comments, I haven't the heart. Clearly this is a film that has worked very well for children of a certain age. Well, let me not be a complete Grinch; it might still work for some children -- if they are not too media-saturated and have not become visually over-sophisticated, e.g. from watching all of LOTR and Harry Potter. But if you are an adult, stay miles away; you will not enjoy it.

The good bits: Barbara Kellerman as the Witch, especially in her early scenes with Edmund, creates just the right blend of charismatic evil and restrained madness. (At the Stone Table she goes a bit over the top.) Michael Aldridge in the minor role of the Professor and Jeffrey S. Perry as Mr. Tumnus also have the kind of polished, skillful acting we'd expect from the very best BBC dramas. And the Aslan costume works very well, amazingly well considering. They got the eyes just right.

The bad bits: almost everything else, but two areas in particular. One, the casting. England is crammed with good actors and contains tens of thousands of attractive British school kids. How could they possibly have ended up with these four stiffs? They move like wooden soldiers and speak about as well. Peter has no gravitas or charisma (and is visibly shorter than his supposedly younger siblings); Edmund is just whiny; and Lucy... Sophie Wilcox as Lucy is so dramatically, visibly, drastically wrong for this part that I can't imagine how she got the job.

Two, the animal costumes. Again, it appears that they worked for some kids. If the kids are still at a level where Big Bird and Elmo are exciting, believable characters, they might be entranced by this film. But to a viewer with the sophistication of, say, a 12-year-old who's seen Prisoner Of Azkaban? When Mister Beaver comes out from behind that tree, there will be hoots of cruel, derisive laughter. The costumes just do not work -- I could not, and I think any adult or modern teen could not, suspend disbelief when looking at Mister Beaver. The drawn animation later (gryphons, etc.) works better, is easier to take.

So: ten stars for the very young and tender of soul; everyone else read, or re-read the book and watch the far better film that unrolls in your imagination.


I am a student of film, and have been for several years. And the concept of a cyber, kung-fu, satirical chimpanzee had me wondering, "Is this the film that's going to break the mold?" Let's face it, America has never been let down by any piece of cinema that features a simian costar. After such great classics as "Monkey Trouble" and "Dunston Checks In", I thought that the best ideas were already taken. But then comes "Funky Monkey". I laughed, I cried, I contemplated suicide.

Now I've read about demon possession in the Bible, but that still doesn't explain why someone would create such a product of evil. First off, having at least a shred of intelligence, I realized that a chimpanzee was in fact an ape, not a monkey at all. However, I was sure that the filmmakers would clear this problem up further into the film. They didn't. Let me sum up this work of art: A company by the name of Z.I.T. has decided to train chimpanzees as soldiers. Why? I think they mention something about the soldiers working for bananas, but when it would cost about an estimated 13 million dollars of government money to train one chimp, this doesn't seem cost-effective. Well anyways, Z.I.T. brings in a CIA specialist (Matthew Modine) to train Clemens (The Chimp). Clemens is everything Z.I.T. hoped for. He can take out an entire shift of guards, who all appear to have gotten their training skills at the local mall, and yet still manage to remind us that we're watching a kid's movie. As you may have guessed, Modine finds out that Z.I.T.'s intentions may be evil (Gasp!) and decides to break Clemens out. Being a CIA agent and all, Modine knows that best way to make himself disappear is to go to a large city, rent a guest room, regularly make appearances on television while fighting crime, and using checks to pay for everything.

Z.I.T. finds out where Modine is staying, and sends two of their finest to retrieve him. These guards are possibly the greatest comedy team up since Martin and Lewis, or was it Turner and Hooch? It doesn't matter anyways, because in the end, for a heck of a twist ending, the good guys win!!! Yay! Hooray for predictability! Throw in a nerdy kid who learns to be himself, a lonely mom who needs a date, and music montages that feature songs that would even be blackballed by Radio Disney and you get "Funky Monkey". The climax to the movie? A football game! Played by thugs, bumblers, a chimp, and the nerd boy. No one seems to care about such substitutions at a high school football game.

Funky Monkey never lets up! It's edge of your seat entertainment. Some might even call this the "American Beauty" of monkey-filled features. After finishing this epic, I recalled hearing a story about a railroad worker who lost much of his brain functions when a metal rod pierced his temporal lobe. Funky Monkey is a metal rod among movies.


I bought this movie from Gamestop's discount used movie bin and the cover caused me to laugh uncontrollably so I bought it for 99cents. The movie itself is retarded and they use like ten different monkeys throughout the whole film that hardly look alike. Not to mention they use a stunt double who is just a short guy in costume making a desperate attempt to impersonate a monkey.

The director more than likely committed a murder-suicide with the chimpanzees after the movie debuted in a preview for some other low rent Warner Bros. film and he ended up owing money to the studio. It also doesn't help that he wasn't even infamous for the terrible job he did, he wasn't even known for producing a poop-chute film.

Why was this movie ever made?


This is the story of two guys who found a copy of 'Funky Monkey.' Finding this seemed odd at the time figuring that there are still posters for the movie at the local Cineplex Odeon. After seeing such classics as 'Every Which Way But Loose' and 'Project X,' these two guys figured movies with monkeys are awesome.

These guys were in for a long ride as they watched this movie. There was some monkey that was replaced by a Stunt MAN when action sequences were required. It was apparent that the monkey wasn't trained in the school of Shakespearean acting. Perhaps replacing the monkey with Ben Affleck might have helped the guys thought.

Maybe a strong sidekick would help like a Jackie Chan or heck maybe even Hulk Hogan. Luckily this movie had amazing martial artist and Jet Li look-a-like Matthew Modine. While some might argue that Matthew Modine doesn't come close to Jet Li, camera tricks prove that he is every bit as good. When it becomes obvious that an untrained chimp can't handle the movie, the movie leans on Matthew Modine to be the real star.

Did I mention that there is some dorky kid that develops a bond with Modine and the monkey? Is there a possibility that the kid learns confidence and even picks up a girl in this movie? Even Matthew Modine should get jealous with this one (because using the pick-up line 'I'm second fiddle to a monkey' doesn't seem to work with the ladies.)

Shortly after watching this movie the two guys got a phone call from Matthew Modine telling them 'Seven days.'