moonmonday That's basically my reaction to the ending. So that's it?"A lot of pointlessness that thinks it's funnier than it is" makes up most of this film. There were a few points where I laughed, a few where I smiled, but it isn't a good movie and doesn't even make a good point. It's just a bunch of people doing scenes that don't really fit well together. It's not a coherent story, and it's not really a coherent movie; it's not even a cohesive artistic statement, because it's all over the place. There's nothing in it that you can pick out from all of the chaos.And that's a shame, because the photography is good. The actors are good. I wanted to like the movie, just as I wanted to like the characters. But it tries too hard to be likable and fails even harder for when it succeeds. It uses people's horrible deaths as punchlines, but it doesn't keep up that tone, it just expects us to laugh when that turns up out of nowhere. It's not funny, and there's not a skillful balance of the heavy and the light, so it ends up being a depressing, pointless, incoherent slog of nothing much. If you have a laugh, it's going to be followed up at some "unexpected" turn by something horrific and depressing. Except it becomes incredibly predictable after the first time, so much that you could set your clock by how invariably it happens every time.By the end, it's very tiring. You're ready for it to be over, and it considerably overstays its welcome. There really wasn't any way it could have ended well, but especially not with such a poorly-written story and not very good direction. The photography was about the only thing well-directed about it. This is, put simply, a bad movie. That doesn't mean it's without its charm or good points. It just means that it is not, by any stretch of the imagination, well-made, well-presented, or a work possessing any particular level of quality or excellence.Evidently, I'm not the kind of person who likes John Waters. I don't believe he's some kind of brilliant creator, just someone following his urges and making films he wants to make. If he likes them, then that's probably enough for him, and that's good; some artists are like that. It doesn't make it a good movie, though, and it makes the constant references to other "artiste" filmmakers all the more annoying, as if they're supposed to lend this gravitas or hilarity. They don't. I just want to watch a Pasolini film instead of this. I'd almost rather watch Fassbinder, except he's about as depressing and difficult to like.And I'll admit, I didn't like all of Pasolini's films either, and I don't think he's for everyone. I'm just not sure this film was for anyone. It's essentially meaningless, and it's unbelievable at every turn, yet it doesn't engage in the kind of fantasy that becomes wondrous or makes the audience want to be a part of it. It's just implausibly miserable and stupid, and that, to me, is worthy of contempt.As much as I liked Melanie Griffith in this, and as much as I do think it shows her natural charisma as an actress, I couldn't find it in me to like the movie. Aside from a few jokes that you could easily edit down into a five-minute clip video, it's not worth watching this. And the jokes are so obvious and out-of-place that you would miss nothing by seeing them without any buildup or context, because there's no buildup or context when they appear in the movie itself.It's a pity they didn't play the song "Is That All There Is?" at the end. That would've at least been witty.

rokcomx John Waters continues his slow and steady seduction of the mainstream with the first half of the movie, only to reward its arousal by slamming a giant butt plug thru the finale. How many ways can one director demonstrate how much they hate the Hollywood machine, by mimicking it with all the jaded "devotion" of porn parody? The closing sequence at a particularly demented and violent drive-in theater screening rocks in a way not seen since Boris Karloff used his senior Citizen Cane to knock out a drive-in sniper in Targets. Yes, Mr. Waters, we know you love to hate us - you have since you made us sit thru a giant drag queen eating dog poo.But, jeez, won't you ever make a movie that doesn't glorify suicidal sociopaths to the point of murder junkie fetishism?

Polaris_DiB John Waters, the master of bad taste and a big proponent of underground cinema himself, has brought to screen probably one of the greatest tongue-in-cheek renditions of the struggle between the Mainstream and the Art House--Cecil B. Demented, a film about a renegade crew of film lovers who kidnap an A-list actress from her impending swan dive and attempt to forever change the face of independent film-making. They have a vision, they have a drive, and they have their actress. Let them lose and see where these cinema anarchists lead you! This film is outrageous, and outrageously glorious. Waters douses the screen with characters, references, and action that any film lover can enjoy (though maybe there might still be a few film snobs out there who just can't take a joke), and pretty much let's his imagination run wild as usual while the motley crew makes one of the best cinematic creations never created.The movie itself is full of irony, a seemingly lost art in contemporary film. Full of big name actors and generally having a pretty accessible storyline, "Cecil B. Demented" is far from the audacity of "Pink Flamingoes". A highly quotable cult picture itself ("Hey MPAA, how many films have you censored today?" and "Hi I'm Raven, I'll be your hairdresser. I'm a Satanist!" are my favorites), it's message is also underlined by the very mainstream critic quotes that pepper the DVD cover, bringing to mind the movie's own line, "Death to all critics who say everything is good!" But that doesn't change it's lovable and eccentric attitude, and helps underline a point itself: this film is a dreamland that every aspiring director hopes for but can never attain. It's filled with the kitsch of success and the nirvana of artistic freedom, and yet it still stars Melanie Griffith (but hey, she does a great job)! A must for any fan of independent cinema, and a good time for anybody with a sense of humor, "Cecil B. Demented" is one of the most pleasing John Waters films of all time.--PolarisDiB

fedor8 Has Waters succeeded in his quest to finally make a good movie? The answer is a predictable and resounding "no".And don't you fall into the trap that he doesn't want to make a "conventional" high-quality movie. Like all outcasts and misfits (I'm not referring to his homosexuality, all you "Homophobia" PC Police spies) he only PRETENDS to revel in making garbage. (Garbage is all he CAN do, so what choice does he have?) Secretly, deep inside him, there is a lonely, ambitious, and quite normal boy who wants to be just as good as Kubrick, Fincher or the Coens. Alas, when you lack even the minimum amount of talent required...So, knowing that he can't match any of the masters - not even enough to get one of his fingers on the Hollywood Walk Of Infamy - he indulges in being the "rebel". Many misfits go the rebel route: whether it be punk music, hippy crap, or "maverick" cinema. Anything to get attention.("Maverick cinema": the area of movie la-la land often inhabited by lesser talents who scream for attention by being "outrageous" because no-one would notice them if they placed their unskilled hands at something worthwhile.) A largely crap cast in a badly written and even more badly directed crap film. It's John Waters, that untalented (and pretending to be proud of it) indie director, so it's no shock.ONCE AGAIN Waters tries his clumsy hand at satire, a genre which he neither understands nor is capable of doing in his wildest dreams. Satire is at its best when it's subtle, not to mention clever - and not to mention funny, but Waters once again takes a stab at it with the subtlety of a sledgehammer.His attack on mainstream Hollywood is to an extent in order - but look where it's coming from: from the gay/transvestite/indie/porn/trash-for-the-sake-of-it scene which totally overestimates itself while ignoring the obvious fact that while Hollywood does turn out big amounts of filmic garbage every year, it also produces a couple of gems now and then.Waters ridiculing Hollywood is a bit like Ted Bundy complaining that Hitler was a genocidal psychopath.What about the indie scene? (And I mean the very low-budget type.) While a lot of its movies are watchable, very rarely do they come up with a great film, and in spite of the fact that hundreds, even 1000s, are being dumped into the internet and seedy cinemas every year. Most of these movies delve in clichés, trite PC characters, and most of them are about meaningless relationships between very boring people and their uneventful environments.Don't get me wrong: I'm not anti-gay, and I even find Waters likable as a person, i.e. the way he presents himself in interviews, but affability is a very long way away from making him a great director.To see just how pathetic Waters's taste in movies is, he shows us by the way of tattoos of various directors on the arms of the "cinema terrorists" who kidnap Griffith (all supposedly representing the true independent directors through the ages): Spike Lee, Sam Fuller, Otto Preminger, Passolini, and a few others. What a sad bunch. Not a single one of these dolts belongs on the directorial Olymp, and - obviously/predictably - some of them have to be gay. Kubrick's greatest mistake was not being gay, otherwise he too wouild have had the honour/privilege of being featured as a tattoo on one of Waters's retarded "terrorists".You wouldn't expect Waters to worship Kubrick, Scorsese, or Fincher, now would you. Waters makes fun of "Patch Adams" and "Forrest Gump", which is to be encouraged, but these are easy targets to ridicule, and he does so in an inept, dull manner. Besides, the alternative he offers us - though quite different - isn't any better: just look at his movies! Waters hasn't made a single mediocre movie yet, and I mean that in the reverse sense, of course: he has yet to RISE to the "elusive heights" of mediocrity, for even that seems like an unattainable goal for him. His films are plain AWFUL.The gags are dumb, the humour is beyond "America Pie"-level. The acting is manic, amateurish, and well... wateresque. Another "water constant" is that all his flicks start off bad, and then get progressively worse. The script seems to melt away as the time passes in a Waters movie; things get even unfunnier, even dumber, and even more manic. If you enjoy French banana-peel comedy, you might disagree...The cast is "blah": Griffith, Dorff, Witt. I can understand why unknown actors would snatch a chance to appear in a Waters film (i.e. any film), but there is no excuse for any of the more or less established faces to appear here: every single actor who says "yes" to starring in a Waters movie is a complete and utter moron - no "ifs" and "buts" about it. Did they actually think they were improving their CVs by working with "yet another master"? How clueless can you get...