Stark Raving Mad (2003) from Johnny Web (Uncle Scoopy; Greg Wroblewski)

This was intended as an action vehicle to star Stifler.

Assuming I guess, that the world really needs action movies starring Stifler.

The production budget was a respectable five million dollars, and the director got good value for that money in terms of production values, but the film was never released in America. It did get a limited release in the UK, where the British critics eviscerated it.

It's a hipper-than-thou film about a guy (Stifler) who uses the noise from his after hours club to cover up a slick heist - a robbery of the bank next door. Unfortunately, everything that can go wrong for him does. His gang is filled with wackos, and the club is filled with people and events which keep distracting him from the job: several competing groups of gangsters, suspicious FBI guys, the owner of the club, power failures, and so forth.


Monet Mazur: not nude, but she showed 90% of her butt in a tiny thong.

DVD info from Amazon

  • no features, no widescreen, crappy film.

  • but you can't beat the price.

As I said, it's too hip and youthful for its own good, but it isn't that bad a film. It is quite slickly edited, and has some offbeat characters and humorous stylized violence. It will remind you a lot of Guy Richie's films. (The cool ones, not Swept Away.)  Yes it is predictable, and yes it is derivative of Richie and Tarantino, but it is completely competent - even kind of slick in some ways - and it should entertain you if you like that kind of film, assuming you have a strong tolerance for fancy quick-cut editing, lighting gimmicks, and excessively loud raves.

The Critics Vote ...

  • General UK consensus: about one star (3/10). BBC scored it 2 stars out of 5, which was about the best review it got.

The People Vote ...

  • IMDB summary. IMDb voters score it 6.5/10. It's a pretty decent flick, but that score is too high.
The meaning of the IMDb score: 7.5 usually indicates a level of excellence equivalent to about three and a half stars from the critics. 6.0 usually indicates lukewarm watchability, comparable to approximately two and a half stars from the critics. The fives are generally not worthwhile unless they are really your kind of material, equivalent to about a two star rating from the critics, or a C- from our system. Films rated below five are generally awful even if you like that kind of film - this score is roughly equivalent to one and a half stars from the critics or a D on our scale. (Possibly even less, depending on just how far below five the rating is.

My own guideline: A means the movie is so good it will appeal to you even if you hate the genre. B means the movie is not good enough to win you over if you hate the genre, but is good enough to do so if you have an open mind about this type of film. C means it will only appeal to genre addicts, and has no crossover appeal. (C+ means it has no crossover appeal, but will be considered excellent by genre fans, while C- indicates that it we found it to be a poor movie although genre addicts find it watchable). D means you'll hate it even if you like the genre. E means that you'll hate it even if you love the genre. F means that the film is not only unappealing across-the-board, but technically inept as well. Any film rated C- or better is recommended for fans of that type of film. Any film rated B- or better is recommended for just about anyone. We don't score films below C- that often, because we like movies and we think that most of them have at least a solid niche audience. Now that you know that, you should have serious reservations about any movie below C-.

Based on this description, this is a C-. I would have called it a C, but as per our policy, I have to reduce any film by a half grade if Richie Valens is in the cast and does not sing La Bamba.

Return to the Movie House home page