Out (1982) User Reviews

The Best Birthday Present of 2007...

[guitarspeechlife · 2/10 · 23 November 2007]

The best birthday present of 2007 is not Deadly Drifter. I suppose being a film major has made my friends avid DVD buyers for me as gifts, this year was no exception. They thought they were getting me an art film with Danny Glover as the lead. Well, this film aka Out was nothing more than a load of poppycock and nonsense.

I must admit though I've never seen a more talentless cast, insanely horrendous cinematography. I can't help but wonder how high the director was when he made this film. Should I have been tripping on acid or heroine?

Warning: Do not watch, you will lose brain cells, your liver may fail, and your kidneys may cease to function.

I don't get it.

[planet groovy · 3/10 · 8 January 2001]

There seems to be a point to this movie, but I have not figured it out yet. There is some kind of conspiracy going on, every time dynamite explodes people's personalities change (like a person with multiple personality syndrome) and the ending provides no explanation to what has been happening during the movie. It's hard to enjoy a story if you don't know what has happened. If you enjoy unusual plots that you have to look deeply at to figure out, you will love this movie. As for me, I can do without it.

Perhaps better after a quarter century

[caa821 · 4/10 · 12 August 2006]

A number of years ago, I attended an exhibition at a renovated, cavernous railroad terminal which had been made into an exhibition and performance facility. There was a show which featured avant-garde art, films, and the "headliner" was Charlotte Moorman. At that time, probably in her mid- to late-30's, Ms. Moorman, a Julliard post-grad alum and concert cellist, had earlier made a name for herself by playing in a concert topless. She was briefly arrested for this and given probation. (I've always pictured how this must have actually been quite fascinating - since she was a "busty" lady, I imagined that she had to be very deft, and careful, in moving the bow across the strings to avoid injury to herself.)

She had then become described as a performer of the "mixed-media" genre, and as a performance artist. I swear, her performance that day was exactly as I describe (I'll certainly never forget it; my mouth wouldn't close until hours later).

First, she destroyed an in-tact piano. An assistant handed her a full-size sledge hammer, and she beat-the-hell out of the instrument (she swung the tool as deftly as Alan Ladd and Van Helfin swung their axes removing a stump early during "Shane"). Then, the assistant handed her a small, hand-held sledge, with which she pulverized the smaller components which her larger tool had dislodged from the instrument.

This accomplished, the assistant now brought her cello and a very large burlap sack. She was wearing a long dress, and proceeded to lie on the floor, crawl completely within the sack, and draw her cello into it. For about five or ten minutes, she wriggled, totally hidden within, stuck an arm out, drew it back in, and did likewise with a stockinged leg. Finally she played some notes (no more than 5 or 6), and you could see the movement of her bow and the outline of the instrument. What she played was not particularly tuneful. She then emerged from the sack, her assistant took same and the cello/bow, and she took a bow as if she had just completed a concerto. And, she did not crack even a semblance of a smile during any of these proceedings.

I'm not an exceptional storyteller, but I promise what I've just described will make more sense, and be more logical to your understanding, than this movie. Strangely, though, in its pretentious, vague, incomprehensible way, this duo-titled flick holds a weird sort of fascination - as did Ms. Moorman's performance. I advise viewing it, just so you can say you did. I'm not sure I'd give it 5 stars; I'd rate it 4-1/2, but since this site does not utilize "halves," let's call it a "4." And I think its fascination may be a bit greater now, than it would have been in an earlier viewing, since nearly a quarter century has elapsed since its filming.

I just saw this film and read others comments.

[Kulture · 5/10 · 1 August 2006]

The title "Deadly Drifter" gave me preconceived expectations of the film that were wrong. After the first ten minutes I knew I was watching an art film and adjusted my expectations to having an open mind. It was obvious that the film was made inexpensively and the actors were over 20 years younger than today. Without being distracted by the dated camera techniques I focused on the writing and the story that was being told. I found myself enjoying the film most when the character Empty Fox entered the story. The only character that doesn't show up more than once with a different name. Not only did he create a stable place from where to interpret the rest of the message but his dialog was infused with meaning that helped ground my understanding of what our "hero" was experiencing as well as impart wisdom to our perception of the reality we find ourselves sucked into. I might view this movie a couple more times to pick up things I might have missed the first time around. I'm appreciative of the fact that the director didn't try to spoon feed me his story like so many movies today that seem to be made only for the sake of eye candy. But then, I enjoy some of those too.

Here's a whole lotta words - but I don't know about what

[KDWms · 1/10 · 7 October 2003]

If you've got more time than you know what to do with, and you're attracted to that which you just can't believe, then try to endure this faux pas in its entirety and kindly post your theories as to what the hell this is all about. I COULD watch it again, but I know that it'd STILL leave me shrugging my shoulders and scratching my head. At first, I thought that it was about a young couple who wanted to become part of an elite strike-force. Then, I thought that maybe it was a series of disconnected vignettes featuring the cast in different roles. (The "disconnected" part stays.) Finally, I realized that I had no idea about what was going on, but, if I hung in there long enough, perhaps it'd all come together. Well...it never did. And THAT was an Indian, several more vignettes, and a strike-force-reunion later. Except, instead of a strike-force, they were now an Independent Communal Unit, in tune with each others' thoughts. (But I doubt that anybody else is on their wavelength.) Sometimes I can overlook the obvious signs of a "cheapie", especially that low-budget audio and bottom-of-the-barrel acting, because there's a followable, ongoing message which is not dollar-conscious. Don't get me wrong, though... there's plenty of that inexpensive stuff here; but I almost missed it trying to latch on to ANY message. However, I don't think that there IS one. This is so ambiguous that I wouldn't even know what genre to put it in: drama? comedy? fantasy? (Horror, for sure; but not in the usual sense.) And it's based on a novel? Must be a bookful of blank pages. I shouldn't say that, though, because I found some of the dialogue quite interesting. (I'm not sure how it pertained to what was happening on screen, but, interesting nonetheless.) To say anything else positive about this movie, however, would, I think, without contradiction, be an impossibility.

Incomprehensible Garbage!

[bsmith5552 · 1/10 · 8 January 2003]

I think that this is the first movie on IMDb that I've "awarded" a rating of "1" to. What a piece of incomprehensible garbage.

I found this movie (and it even has two titles) in one of those bargain bin double feature DVDs. Based on the fact that both Peter Coyote and Danny Glover appear in it, I thought it would at least be worth a look. Wrong!

The "story" appears to involve a group of people be they secret agents or spaced out druggies or whatever, I can't tell. Anyway our hero, Rex (Coyote) starts out on a cross country trek to meet up with I think, "the old man" somewhere on the west coast. He has a weirdo companion (O-Lan Jones) along who he apparently marries along the way. Then she takes off. Rex keeps encountering the members of the original group (one of which is Glover) along the way only they have different names and don't appear to know each other. Still with me? Anyway, Rex finally reaches his destination only to meet up with the original group. The girlfriend walks into the ocean. End of movie.

It is amazing that the careers of Peter Coyote and Danny Glover didn't end right here. This movie looks like some sort of experimental film or one in which the film makers and the cast are stoned throughout. The whole thing is a mess and a complete waste of time.

AKA Deadly Drifter, the title bespeaks the plot...

[johnston-3 · 1/10 · 23 July 2000]

Peter Coyote presents a decent performance in this far less than credible movie. It has been released as a DVD featuring Danny Glover. Danny has a very small role in this 1982 independent film, so I suspect his inclusion on the jacket is because of his recent popularity - in other words - just to sell the DVD. The best performance comes from O- Lan Shepard (O-Lan Jones), who is not listed on the CD. Her role provides the only semblance of a plot in this othwise pointless film. She is also a viable addition for the reasons Peter points out in in the course of the film. The drifter (Peter Coyote) is seen in each of 10 scenes which count down from 10 to 1. They seem to point out in absurdist terms the pointlessness of life as a man with early stages of ESP drifts from venue to venue encountering slimly related mini-plots. Some of the transitions would have required a Star Trek-like transporter to work. Characters reappear like themes in a cyclic symphony, feeding on the main characters paranoia and lack of direction. If you just love absurdist theatre, you might actually like this one a little. If not, stay home.

I Think I Understand, But It Still Blows

[PulpVideo · 1/10 · 23 February 2006]

This appears to be an allegorical film about the stages many of the 60's radicals went through as they drifted into the 80's. At first, it was about destruction of the system and a creation of an "anti- system." They pass through various stages of identity as they try to find themselves, including Native American teachings and "new age" connections to whales and so forth. Finally, they end up with families and celebrating the Fourth of July on the beach.

The stuff about reading minds, I think, is an allegory for how these people thought alike, or perhaps some tribute to Jung's "collective unconscious," or both.

In the end, when Nixie/Dixie disappears into the ocean, I think what is being said is that these people were no longer unique (as radicals), but "disappeared" into the "ocean" of everyday people living everyday lives. The final images of the amusement park, then, may be allegory for the USA itself.

The thing is, even though I think I understand what the film was trying to say, I still think it blows and that I wasted my time watching it. Thankfully, most people who will be duped into buying the DVD by Danny Glover's and Peter Coyote's pictures on the cover (as I did), will be getting it from the "bargain bin," and paying only a dollar or so for it. As for the 88 minutes spent watching it...

Don't waste your time on this Nonsense

[med_1978 · 1/10 · 12 November 2007]

A friend of mine bought this on DVD for £1. We sat down to watch it a few days ago after 30 minutes I realized that this was one of these type of abstract films. One where the meaning is not immediately apparent, that said however I still found it to be poorly written and the actors sleepwalking through their roles. This is one totally ridiculous mess and after 20 minutes you will be dumbfounded at how ridiculous the plot and film is, if you manage to stay awake this long. If you are buying it as a Danny Glover fan DO NOT BOTHER, he is only in the film about 10 minutes. This film was obviously made on a shoestring budget and it really shows.

Utterly unwatchable for the viewer

[oscar-35 · 10 June 2008]

An oddball comedy depicting twenty years in the life of a mercenary road warrior. Starring: Peter Coyote, Danny Glover. This film was terrible. This film was terrible. A film of confusing and non-empathetic film characters that jumps around so that the viewer cannot follow the action. This film is so bad in all aspects of movie making that it appears to have been made by complete amateur story tellers. The actors don't help much by their on screen work. Utterly unwatchable for the viewer and UN satisfying on ANY level. Casting and acting was NOT believable. The over all review of this film was that the script was too bland and needed a 'punch' or colorful finish.

Absolutely Pointless

[rioplaydrum · 1/10 · 10 April 2008]

I checked out this movie from the local library and was intrigued by the plot summary written on the back. That was as good as it got! This film is a rambling mish-mash of unconnectable plots and dialog and doesn't make the slightest attempt to live up to it's own selling points.

How respectable actors like Peter and Danny became involved in this putrid mess will forever remain a mystery. They must have been drugged and kidnapped.

If you're a good, conscientious human being, you will make an effort to buy up any and all copies of this intellectual black-hole and have them destroyed with large caliber hand-guns.

This movie is a true horror.

Most of you are TOO DAMN SIMPLE MINDED to even bother TALKING about this movie.

[sixsixwitch · 9/10 · 11 April 2006]

I really can't believe the number of negative reviews for this thought provoking film, which only goes to show that you are, no offense, mostly too stupid to even review it. This movie is not for those who are easily distracted, not for the 30 second sound bite reality TV mind, not for those who need the movie to do all the thinking for them. These are the reviews of people who cannot appreciate a painting if it doesn't look like a bowl of fruit or a naked Roman woman.

It should be quite obvious from the beginning (and I went into this movie with NO expectations as it was purchased from a 99 cent DVD rack under a different title - Deadly Drifter) that this movie is a surrealist exercise and that your standard plot devices and "beginning to middle to end" paradigm is NOT going to apply here. It's experimental in it's technique and is LOADED with subtext. It makes commentary on the futility and absurdity of the radical political movements of the 60's (and today???), the police state, drugs, sex, love, religion, sprituality, responsibility...but with a mixture of SUBTLETY (missing today) and experimental shock. Peter Coyote gives a nuanced performance as the protagonist "Rex/Carl" which ranges from detached observer to emotional easy rider, if you will...and that's about all I'll say without spoiling it for those who have the GUTS and open mindedness to come off of your shelves.

Reminiscent of 60's hallucinatory heydays

[chinatown_96817 · 7/10 · 12 June 2006]

Would be interesting to know if Peter Coyote and Ronald Sukenick were old friends. I'm wondering if Peter assisted Ronald in writing it. The movie contains many elements similar to what Peter experienced during his days in the 60's. To understand, read "Sleeping Where I Fall". How many movies/writers has Peter influenced and inspired to write of his, and others personal experiences from the 60's. Sometimes I wonder if Peter is trying to tell us something which he is unable to openly acknowledge. Is Peter telling us in a "code" what happened back then and that someday it will all come to light? Someday, maybe after his death, a manuscript will surface telling us what it was he was saying. The basic theme of being directed by a mysterious entity to commit acts reminds me of the Manson family. Peter, who was your Charlie? I think the movie is a cult classic. A brief glimpse into what many experienced in the 60's. Magic, wonder and a profound peek into the depth of being.

My brother bought me this movie to torture me

[TDslugger02 · 1/10 · 2 June 2005]

I never knew a trip to the Dollar Store could affect my life so negatively. Deadly Drifter was sitting in the $1 bin for a reason.

When I saw Danny Glover on the cover, I figured there had to be some substance to it. No such luck. Apparently he was hard up for cash to take on a project like this. This is the kind of movie an actor regrets doing like a politician regrets his wild youth. The movie from start to finish was complete drivel.

The goal of the movie was to be an intellectually stimulating movie that left you believing the reason you didn't understand it at all was because it was so deep. Instead, it was because the plot was awful, patchwork and didn't come together in any kind of relevant ending.

Deadly Drifter was physically painful to watch. I compare it to sitting in the worst class ever, checking the clock to see if it's over yet and then realizing that you're only 10 minutes in. There was nothing I enjoyed about the movie more than its completion.

The only redeeming quality of the movie at all was that some of the scenes would have the crew at Mystery Science Theater 3000 giddy with excitement about the potential lines they could write up. From the alphabet soup, to the random grabbing of one and only one boob, to the scene where Peter rubbed a rock against his face like he was attracted to it, Deadly Drifter is filled with ridiculous and utterly laughable moments.

If you're looking for a C-level movie to suck more than an hour of your life away and leave you feeling cheated, this is for you. If not, leave it in the dollar bin for some other sucker.

Bizarre low-budget movie that I can't really make sense of but that kept my interest

[Seth_Rogue_One · 5/10 · 15 February 2015]

Bizarre but enjoyable for the most part, reminded me a little of Lynch, Dupieux or Shyamalan... But with amateurish directing...

Maybe as a drama it doesn't work but as a comedy it's pretty funny; the future-telling-reading through cereals, that native American who started to sing at the randomest of moments, the cow-tongue recipe lol it's pretty funny if you look at it as a comedy

I tried to find a message in it cause it seemed like it had one but I fell a little short there

I think trying to sell it as a thriller calling it Deadly Drifter on some releases was a dumb move, I'm not sure what it is but it's not a thriller I guess it's a art-house flick... Based on a book apparently I imagine the book being a little clearer about what actually was going on in the movie

Anyhows although I never really was able to figure it out and it is flawed it kept my interest

Danny Glover is not in it all that much, this is mainly Peter Coyote's vehicle

Amazingly bad and totally confusing

[grinchy · 3/10 · 3 May 2005]

Like everyone else who commented on this movie, my wife and I were equally confused. My wife suggested that the book this movie was based on was probably better and that it was butchered into an incoherent mess when it was turned into a movie. Imagine our shock to read that the book's author was the screen writer!There went that theory.

This is an experimental film that failed. If you want a good laugh, invite a friend to watch it. Tell them it is really intense and deep and watch them struggle with it as you sit back and pretend to know what it's all about! Frankly, this super-low budget mess is very good for a laugh between using it as a gag on a friend and just watching the insanity of it.

Danny Glover isn't on camera much, yet it's packaged as a Glover movie. The rest of the cast couldn't act their way out of a paper bag, except for Peter Coyote, which was the only other saving grace. To his credit, he acted well in this hideous film, but even an Oscar winning performance is not going to save it.

According to the synopsis we read, this is supposed to take place from the 60's to the 80's, yet there is no mention or indication of that in the movie that we could see. People didn't dress in period outfits, hair styles were the same and so on. Also, according to what we read, this is supposed to be about a guy who wanders from place to place trying to find himself. Well, OK, now that we read that, yeah, you might say the main character is doing that, but then how does all the other bizarre, meaningless garbage fit in? The horrible opening with a guy nearly getting his throat cut or secret messages sent via ESP to bowls of alphabet soup and that sort of thing? We got some hope when Peter Coyote's character meets up with an old Native American Grandfather. Being Native American, and understanding Native spirituality allows a privileged few of us to understand that part of the film, but in the end it doesn't help clarify anything. The ending of the film is baffling and seems out of left field.

Though symbolism can vary from Nation to Nation, we both agreed that the section with the Grandfather misleads viewers into thinking that the character is about to learn some great thing that will really clarify the plot, which had up until that point been nonexistent. Instead, the vision the character has about the whales remains unrelated to the outcome, as does his newfound psychic abilities. When his "wife" disappears into the ocean, we are totally unable to figure out why. No explanation is offered or even alluded to and even the vision he had doesn't really help us relate. It only leaves you with more questions, like "who was she, really?" "Was she the spirit of the water?" and so on.

To further add to the confusion, Peter's character looks like a fairly straight laced guy who is clean cut and clean shaven. They should have let him look like a hippie. It would have worked better.

We found it packaged as 4 films in one package in a bargain bin at Walmart. You are suckered into it because the packaging misleads you into thinking you will be watching rare gems - long lost early beginnings of the careers of several black actors like James Earl Jones and Morgan Freeman and Danny Glover and Louis Gosset Jr. So far we've watched 2 of the 4 films. The other one we watched was pretty bad, too, but actually, it wasn't funny so this one is at least more entertaining! It just has to be seen to be believed. It really is that bad!

Deadly Dull

[david-2271 · 1/10 · 15 November 2006]

I saw this film in a college drama class. I had enjoyed "Eraserhead," "Zardoz" and "Spirit of the Beehive," and I thought this movie would be in the same vein; ambiguous and thought provoking. I was wrong. "Out/Deadly Drifter" is so incredibly boring it kept me from thinking anything besides "how can I sneak out without jeopardizing my grade." It was unquestionably the worst movie I have seen in my life.

The plot (and I use the term loosely) involves a young radical who has decided he wants out of the movement he has devoted himself to. To this end, he embarks on a cross country journey and strange things happen to him. A detailed discussion of what these strange things are would be pointless. Reading about them is not the same as seeing them, and they form no cohesive idea to write about.

The faults with this movie are plentiful. Unlike, say, "Eraserhead" hardly anyone can empathize with the hero of "Out." What is the movement he is fleeing? Why did he join? Why is he leaving now? Answering just one of these questions might have helped. If the hero could not have been made sympathetic, he could at least have been interesting. Instead, he is simply a cardboard cutout being led through events by a pretentious director.

Many directors will use interesting visuals to liven a slow film. "Out" is too cheap a production to provide that. Danny Glover's presence only makes the latter fact more peculiar; did the director think people would flock to see the film just for Danny Glover's presence? If you need an illustration of how bad this movie is, look on the covers. The VHS version shows Glover holding a gun, suggesting that "Out" is a action picture. The DVD version asks "was it a government conspiracy" as if "Out" were an X-files type thriller. "Out" is in fact neither of these, and the distributors efforts to fool would-be viewers is pathetic!

This is especially true when you consider that movies like "Out" will always have defenders (usually people who have never read "The Emperor's New Clothes"). Defenders may sneer at those who don't "get it," ignoring the fact that leprosy is hard to get too. "Ambiguous" is not a synonym for "good," and "Out" proves that point in spades.

Not a bad movie...

[rob30316 · 1/10 · 16 May 2005]

...a singularly terrible movie. I couldn't finish watching it. Incidentally, is it possible to write a spoiler for a movie with no plot? It wasn't even the absurdity or randomness that annoyed me so much as the pretension. The whispered, overdubbed dialog; the random 'important' phrases being repeated ad nauseam; the cheezy dream sequence, also repeated ad nauseam. And the alphabet soup? The acting is mediocre at best, there doesn't seem to be any direction, and there's almost no music, though a movie this boring needs a strong score. I actually watched this movie because I was intrigued by the horrendous reviews it got on this site--don't make the same mistake! It's not worth it. It's just painful.

£5.99 at a petrol station - that explains it!

[patkinson · 1/10 · 12 October 2003]

When it first started I thought it may be a David Lynch type movie with some deep significant plot, the sort of movie you watch several times and pick up something new each time.

How wrong I was!

This movie was so bad that I even came to IMDB to see what the plot was and after reading other peoples comments I see I am not alone. This is a movie which will probably never been watched again in my house unless I am burgled and they take every other DVD and my satellite box. Even then I think my screensaver might be a better option.

If someone (I guess only the creators of this movie) wants to put me right, please do so.

Deadly ...Boring

[aminthepm2001 · 7 July 2005]

Thank God for the numbers denoting each segment, or I would never have known when this thing was gonna end. Not much positive to say, except I did enjoy the Grandfather. He was the only spark of life in the plot. O-lan Mitchell (Dixie) provided about the only acting spark. This HAD to be a student film or experimental film, judging from some of the end credits. I want my dollar back!!! Lots of words, just no meaning or conviction. I did get a few of the mild, sly jokes that seemed to pertain to Patti Hearst. Also a bit offended by the "cookout" scene, it just seemed somehow anti-American. The jacket cover said the film was based on a novel. Was it a sci-fi novel? Hope someone knows.

Whisper....Whisper....

[retrogames · 1/10 · 2 April 2008]

The whispering for dramatic effect is just as stupid as the dialog in this talky no budget nonsense. It looks like its mainly improvised by a group of actors (and im using the term loosely) who owed somebody a favor, why else would they be in this turkey.

Even on a bargain $1.00 DVD this is a waste of cash, if your a fan of any of the names associated with this movie, do yourself a favor and avoid it, there's no plot, no style and no movie here. Just a complete mess of different talky scenes that make no sense, maybe someone thought this was art...and remember this was made before taking a dump in a fish tank was considered art, so maybe this inspired someone after all!

Painful

[joseph_stoesser · 1/10 · 3 August 2006]

Without exception this is the worst movie I have ever forced myself to sit through. In fact, this movie was so bad that I actually registered to this site so that I could give it a vote of 1 out of 10. The only good thing I can say about this movie is that it should give any future director hope.... if this move can be produced, any movie can. Do not watch unless you have already identified masochistic tendencies in your sexual preferences. I value my time and feel as if these hours could have been better spent watching paint dry. The latter would have been far more entertaining and stimulating. My mind at this moment feels like a bucket of half-dried cement. I agree with another user's comment: the careers of Peter Coyote and Danny Glover should have ended right here. For the sake of all peoples everywhere, please add a warning label to the cover of your movie if it is going to be even half as unbearable as this one. Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to get drunk and hopefully forget all about this painful experience.

A great film that engages the viewer in the best sense... Highly recommended!

[otherem101 · 10/10 · 25 June 2006]

Incredible film... funny, clever, challenging. Even though the film was made in the 80's, I found it relevant to our time. The acting is superb... some of the best I have seen from Peter Coyote and Danny Glover. The rest of the cast is amazing. One should watch this film more than once, as the first time, it may seem baffling, but when you see it more than once, it makes sense in a deep way. It's obvious that this film was a labor of love and commitment. I much prefer the title "Out" to "Deadly Drifter" (which, I understand, was not the original name -- "Out" was).

If you enjoy a film that makes you, the viewer, work a bit, then this is one of these films. Don't be put off by other people's remarks. The work that you put into it is worth it -- I highly recommend it!!!

Only For Open Minded Free Thinkers...

[dickson9 · 7/10 · 4 August 2005]

I can hardly wait to see this Brilliant Movie Again! What makes it so??? Because it absolutely makes no sense to anyone viewing it except for his or her own interpretation...thats it! The whole effect of this movie....is that you do not know where you are, where your been, and where you might be going...but you hang in there...maybe not for the staid type who has to be told where they are at...but if you have ANY! imagination left after being treated like numbskull's by the Movie Industry...then do see this Movie..with Peter Coyote and Danny Glover...and a Elder of the First Nation...it will make you think, and then think again...See It!

wtf?

[sdw2105 · 1/10 · 5 August 2005]

What the hell did I just sit through?? I bet this movie would have been better if I was high or on an acid trip! ...It had it's funny moments especially when the Indian would just break out into song and there would be no point to his singing...the chick cooking the "slong", and when they keeping "reading each other's minds!" I thought this movie was from 1972, but now I know its from 1982! This is the worst garbage I've ever seen! This movie was meant to watched while smoking weed or doing acid...please...don't watch this sober!! I am glad I saw this movie for free. I just couldn't stop laughing, it was a good laugh! The chick was sort of cute...sort of.Other wise, this movie suck ass!